Finally! A Non-Financial Topic

My brother-in-law sent me the following articles on "energy from algae."

http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

The concept is intriguing, if true: grow green algae (pond scum) in a tank, and then cycle them through a series of vertically arranged, long, thin, soft plastic packets to expose them to sunlight. The biomass of this algae, according to the investigator, is 50 percent lipids (vegetable oil) by weight.

Algae production would overcome certain problems related to corn-based ethanol:

• It generates more biofuel per acre.
• It does not take away from food supplies.
• It does not force farmers to clear new land to produce other ethanol-producing plants.

Now the claims that Mr. Kertz of Valcent Products makes are a bit pie in the sky, sort of like the energy promises of solar power satellite advocates, but what the heck, we need all the alternatives we can find, right? Still, the science fiction writer in me wonders a few things:

• What is the power input/output ratio (i.e., how much energy does it cost to produce this stuff vs. how much energy does the algae actually produce)?
• Where does the power come from to keep the pump and oil extrusion facilities going?
• What happens when the algae gets a disease--natural or artificial?
• What happens if water, sunlight, or some other critical aspect of the whole scheme becomes limited?

At least people are thinking creatively. I'd be curious to know how much government funding this guy is getting. Still, if the power potential is real, the market is there, and the federal expenditure is minimal, then it might well be an investment worth making. Or better, keep the government the hell out of it, and let me buy stock!

More on the Financial Mess

A friend sent me the following bill proposed by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2755

In it, Congressman Paul suggested closing down the Federal Reserve. 'Twas an intriguing notion. The Fed has existed for 95 years--nearly half of our nation's history. It might bear considering why it was created and why the United States didn't have a central bank to begin with. I must defer to Wikipedia for a little education on this, as my education on this aspect of our history is a bit sketchy. I know that Thomas Jefferson and many of the Southern plantation owners resisted creation of a central bank because many of them were in debt to bankers and so mistrusted bankers as a class and organized banking as an institution (even if, then as now, it was often the fault of the Southerners for not repaying loans in the first place). I knew that that Second Bank of the United States failed during the administration of Andrew Jackson. I'll leave Wikipedia to continue the tale:

The first institution with responsibilities of a central bank in the U.S. was the First Bank of the United States, chartered in 1791 by Alexander Hamilton. Its charter was not renewed in 1811. In 1816, the Second Bank of the United States was chartered; its charter was not renewed in 1836, after it became the object of a major attack by president Andrew Jackson. From 1837 to 1862, in the Free Banking Era there was no formal central bank. From 1862 to 1913, a system of national banks was instituted by the 1863 National Banking Act. A series of bank panics, in 1873, 1893, and 1907 provided strong demand for the creation of a centralized banking system.

The main motivation for the third central banking system came from the Panic of 1907, which renewed demands for banking and currency reform.[2] During the last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century the United States economy went through a series of financial panics.[3] According to proponents of the Federal Reserve System and many economists, the previous national banking system had two main weaknesses: an "inelastic" currency; and a lack of liquidity. The following year Congress enacted the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which provided for an emergency currency and established the National Monetary Commission to study banking and currency reform.

...

Criticisms

Criticisms of the Federal Reserve System are not new, and some historical criticisms are reflective of current concerns.
At one end of the spectrum are economists from the Austrian School and the Chicago School who want the Federal Reserve System abolished. They criticize the Federal Reserve System’s expansionary monetary policy in the 1920s, arguing that the policy allowed misallocations of capital resources and supported a massive stock price bubble. They also cite politically motivated expansions or tightening of currency in the 1970s and 1980s.

Handling of The Great Depression

Milton Friedman, leader of the Chicago School, argued that the Federal Reserve System did not cause the Great Depression, but made it worse by contracting the money supply at the very moment that markets needed liquidity. Since its entire existence was predicated on its mission to prevent events like the Great Depression, it had failed in what the 1913 bill tried to enact. Friedman explains his hypothesis on the cause of The Great Depression and the role the Federal Reserve played in it in his book and documentary series Free to Choose. An excerpt of his hypothesis:

the recession only became a crisis when these failures spread to New York and in particular to this building, then the headquarters of the Bank of United States. The failure of this bank had far reaching effects and need never have happened...Only a few blocks away is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was here that the Bank of United States could have been saved. Indeed, the Federal Reserve System had been set up 17 years earlier precisely to prevent the worst consequences of bank failures...It was all a question of reassuring the public that they could get their money. The Federal Reserve System was there to ensure that this happened by supplying cash to the banks...Why didn't this system prevent The Great Depression after 1929? Because from 1929 to 1930 after the stock market crashed, the Federal Reserve system allowed the quantity of money to decline slowly thereby throttling the monetary structure...If the Federal Reserve had stepped in, bought government securities on a large scale, provided the cash, the depositors would have found that they could've got their money and they would have stopped asking for it...Despite excellent advice from New York, the system refused to buy government bonds, something which would have provided cash to the commercial banks with which they could have met more easily the insisted demands of their depositors. Instead, believe it or not, the system stood idly by while banks crashed on all sides. As the head of one of the banks put it, the reserve system had to keep its powder dry for a real emergency.

...

Opacity
Some argue that the Federal Reserve System is shrouded in excessive secrecy. Meetings of some components of the Fed are held behind closed doors, and the transcripts are released five years after the meeting was held. Even expert policy analysts are unsure about the logic behind Fed decisions. Critics argue that such opacity leads to greater market volatility, because the markets must guess, often with only limited information, about how the Fed is likely to change policy in the future. The jargon-laden fence-sitting opaque style of Fed communication, especially under the previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, has often been called "Fed speak."

...

Business cycles, libertarian philosophy and free markets
Economists of the Austrian School such as Ludwig von Mises contend that the Federal Reserve's operation amounts to an artificial manipulation of the money supply and has led to the boom/bust business cycle occurring over the last century. Many economic libertarians, such as Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard, believe that the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the money supply to stop "gold flight" from England, caused, or was instrumental in causing, the Great Depression. See Austrian Business Cycle Theory. In general, laissez-faire advocates of free banking argue that there is no better judge of the proper interest rate and money supply than the market.
Many libertarians also contend that the Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. Congressman Ron Paul (ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy), for example, argues that:

"The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy."

The rest of the article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System.

The Austrian School type libertarians argue that FDIC should likewise be abolished, as federal insurance of deposits encourages irresponsible behavior in banks. However, they fail to offer any defenses or preventative measures against another bubble or bust. In pure libertarianism, the market may rule, but in the economic reality of the United States, especially with a Congress and President calling for a massive bailout of the real estate market, that is unlikely. The U.S. has been a mixed economy since 1913 precisely because public pressure grew on the government to prevent future boom and bust cycles.

Other free-market types bemoaned the removal of the United States from the Gold Standard, which is simply the notion that currency be tied to a known, precious, and limited resource, like gold. Wikipedia is, again, instructive on explaining the disadvantages of a gold standard:

Disadvantages
A currency needs to satisfy three functions to become a true representation of transactions between people:

• Medium of exchange
• Store of value
• Delivery of value (energy)

For gold currencies to be valid, the issuer should be able to deliver "value / energy" on redemption of currency. Otherwise, gold currency has no mechanism to satisfy the "delivery of value" function to be real currency.

Gold does not have inherent value/energy so exchange value has to be negotiated during each transaction. During times of scarcities like famine, exchange value of gold goes down drastically.

• The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 tons. Assuming a gold price of US$1,000 per ounce, or $32,500 per kilogram, the total value of all the gold ever mined would be around $4.5 trillion. This is less than the value of circulating money in the U.S. alone, where more than $7.6 trillion is in circulation or in deposit (although international banking currently practices fractional reserves). Therefore, a return to the gold standard would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold, which may limit its use in current applications. For example, instead of using the ratio of $1,000 per ounce, the ratio can be defined as $2,000 per ounce (or $1,000 per 1/2 ounce) effectively raising the value of gold to $8 trillion. Gold standard advocates consider this to be an acceptable and necessary risk.
• Fluctuations in the amount of gold that is mined could cause inflation, if there is an increase, or deflation if there is a decrease. Some hold the view that this contributed to the Great Depression.
• It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor to an economy’s demand for money, giving central banks fewer options to respond to economic crises. Some
  have contended that the gold standard may be susceptible to speculative attacks
  when a government's financial position appears weak. For example, some believe the United States was forced to raise its interest rates in the middle of the Great Depression to defend the credibility of its currency.
• If a country wanted to devalue their currency, it would produce sharper
  changes than the smooth declines seen in fiat currencies.

*

And yet one more article from Wikipedia, which is quite comprehensive, covering errors on both the government and banking sides of the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

*

I've heard a variety of responses to this situation, from the much-disliked $700 billion bailout to zero action and other schemes in the middle. The sheer range of responses indicates to me that no one has a damned clue how to fix the current mess. It's interesting to note that Forbes Magazine had this to say about the $700B figure:

In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number." [Emphasis mine.]

Holy cats! do you realize the significance of this statement? This is a money (and power) grab, pure and simple. The government has no damned idea how much money it would cost to fix the problem, but rather than take the time to figure things out rationally, because it's a crisis, they figured they'd come up with the biggest number imaginable and then figure out how to sell the idea and spend the money before people have time to complain about where it's all going. No wonder people from both parties choked. We've got an election in around 40 days, and who the heck is going to pony up more tax money for a damned guess?!???

The question is, how long can the government or the market hold up while a mixture of hotheads and cooler heads tries to figure out what to do and how to get the public to approve a solution? I'm willing to take some temporary economic pain if the government and the banking systems take the time to get things right. But then one must be specific about "temporary." We've all been suffering from $4-per-gallon gasoline already. Can we really afford to wait for the next slipper to fall? The world wonders.

The Present Financial Mess, Again Reconsidered

So the bailout vote failed, and the Dow has toppled around 6% ($1.2 trillion in value). What does it say about the state of the companies making up the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) when their value falls for lack of a socialized bailout? It strikes me that the government has become too entwined in our economy. What does it say about the bailout when a Democrat-controlled House and Senate can't pass a supposedly no-fail bill and insist that it's Republicans' fault? It seems that the bill they wanted to pass was a mess.

And we continue forth into unknown territory. Can we force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to NOT issue anymore "sub-prime" loans? Will we afford to throw people out of homes they can't afford to pay for? Should we allow people who still have free cash to buy up the bad loans? Unknowns, all. But there are things that can and should be done, which don't require massive government spending or deeper intervention into the economy. But we're in a crisis! We need help NOW!

Fine. Make the bailout. I'm tired of hearing it. The Democrats control the Congress, and the President is behind a bailout. So what's the problem? They don't have the votes. One must simply wonder why. All I want is the unlimited license, once the bailout goes through and things are made worse, to say I told you so. Because you know I will.

Update

My bank, Wachovia, is about to be eaten by Citibank. The press release can be found here. Apparently, Wachovia had eaten a savings and loan that dealt heavily in subprime mortgages, which weakened its position, along with Washington Mutual. Great. Will I get any bonus as a customer because I've always paid my bills on time?

SpaceX Has First Successful Falcon 1 Launch

This is huge: SpaceX has had its first successful launch of a payload to orbit. The launch video can be found here: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/09/spacex_update_2.html

Why does this matter? Simple: it brings the U.S. one step closer to not having depend completely upon the Russians or anyone else, for that matter, to get cargo or people to the International Space Station. This is the first privately developed launch vehicle to achieve orbit.

Mind you, this is the Falcon 1, the smaller of Elon Musk's launch vehicles. Falcon 9 is the one that would take cargo to ISS, and the Falcon 9 Heavy variant is supposed to launch crew (aboard the Dragon spacecraft) or cargo to ISS. No doubt SpaceX will face more challenges with Falcon 9, as it did with Falcon 1, but I would hope that the commercial doubters out there have enough good grace to wish SpaceX congratulations. I'm not counting on that 100%. I know a few people who will say, "Yeah, but they haven't put up a working payload, reached 99.9999% reliability, launched heavy cargo, gone to ISS, split the fifth dimension, altered time, sped up the harvest, or saved the galaxy yet." To which I want to respond, "Well, jeez, you've got to start somewhere! And how many launch failures did NASA have when the space program first began?" [Take a look at The Right Stuff book or movie for an answer to that.] An example of this attitude can be found in response to a book review about a book on SpaceShipOne:

So called "Spaceship One" was not in any way a space ship, did not go into "space", did not go into orbit around the Earth, nor was it an achievement in aerospace technology at all. The vehicle was a rocket propelled engineering stunt circa 1955 that burned old rubber tires for fuel! How far are you gonna get on that stuff? The age of freeboot space pioneers financed by freeboot capital has yet to dawn but when the light shines those that go into the High Frontier won't be burning rubber!

I've got to wonder about that sort of psychology: when national capabilities are increased or great achievements are made, what purpose does it serve to put them down or minimize them, except to feed or soothe the egos of others? Still, I take this flight a good sign after three failures.

Am I a little too gung-ho for the commercial sector? I'm not quite sure how. Why should anyone wish them ill, or wish to doubt their abilities? If the private sector can get stuff into space, that is only to NASA's benefit, as the agency will be able to use other providers and eventually to reduce costs to the taxpayer. This launch will increase confidence in Falcon 1, in SpaceX, and in "commercial space" in general. And quite frankly, the space business (and the nation) could use all the confidence it can get right now.

Creeping Middle Age

What's middle aged, anyway? If the average life expectancy in the U.S. is 77.6 years old, that means, the median "middle of life" is 38.8, a point I passed around June of this year. But little things creep up on you before the bald statistics.

Perhaps it first happens when you get beaten easily playing volleyball against a couple of 20-somethings, and your 40-something teammate turns to you and says, "Whaddya gonna do with a couple of old guys like us?"

Perhaps it's a shift in behaviors, as when you find yourself acting responsibly, doing square things like listening to the weather or the traffic report to decide how to dress or what route to take when you go to work in the morning. Or the moment when you realize that "hitting the bars for an all-nighter" sounds more like a headache than a good time. Or the moment when you realize you really have had one too many and mill around the bar for an hour or two, nursing a half-dozen waters before heading for your car.

Perhaps it's a moment when you talk to someone ten years younger than you and she doesn't get more than half of the pop-culture references you make in the conversation.

Perhaps it's when someone looks to you as the "voice of authority" on something.

Perhaps it's when your doctor tells you to lose some weight, and then hands you a couple additional prescriptions to cope with the joys and ravages of middle age and slightly-more-than-middle weight.

And yet the middle of life isn't necessarily such a bad thing. You've learned a lot by this point, and you're on the verge of your peak earning years. You can still do stuff like help your friends (or yourself) move, but later realize you probably shouldn't have. You know better who you are, what you like, what you can do, what your dreams are, and what sorts of things you will and won't accept from people. You're almost, but not quite, at the point where you feel comfortable being who you are and doing what you like to do. You know what sorts of things are bad for you and what things not to do. Usually. I know there are people who refuse to accept the forward winding of the clock. It's not just a matter of wearing clothes that don't fit the body or the age anymore. It's wearing attitudes and ideas that don't fit anymore that approaches the comical. For men it's the red sports car and the 25-year-old girlfriend. For women, it's the facelift, the miniskirt, and maybe the 25-year-old boyfriend. It's become known as the mid-life crisis, and it hits different people in different ways.

Personally, I'm cool with my age. But then the scary part about middle age probably doesn't hit until later. Accepting middle age means accepting that you're not a young whippersnapper capable of doing whatever the hell you want and then waking up with no pain or hangover or regrets the next morning. The scary part when you start feeling twinges of mortality, actual oldness. I'm not there yet. Just slowing down. And in the meantime, I'm in no rush to get the sports car, or the 25-year-old girlfriend. I mean, really now! As my parents used to tell me when I was young, "Act your age!"

More on the Mess

More from Dr. Pournelle: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q3/view537.html#Friday

He is no lover of government intervention, but as a child of the Great Depression, he has a different perspective than I do. He also recommends an editorial by John Paulson that deserves consideration. If I understand Paulson correctly, he favors government purchase of preferred stock of companies/banks/institutions thought to be critical to the system rather than buying bad or low-value assets. As he puts it:

This mechanism -- purchases of senior preferred stock with warrants in troubled institutions -- addresses the problems with the Treasury plan. The financial market is stabilized, companies get recapitalized, failures are avoided, debt securities are supported, and time is gained for illiquid assets to mature.

This would make the government more of a conservator than an hostile takeover agent. One thing Paulson does not make explicit is how much this purchase of preferred stock would cost. However, he seems to hint that his approach would be a better way to spend $700B, not a way to spend less.

I do know this: Obama wants to spend more federal money than has even been contemplated to date. He has made this quite clear. It seems unlikely that such spending would not occur without increasing taxes. Increasing taxes in the midst of a recession is precisely the wrong thing to do. If you take away more money from "the rich," who are the ones investing and making the economy go, just as they're losing money from a tanking market, there will be even less money available to expand the economy, hire workers, or buy products and services.

Another idea I heard suggested dropping the capital gains and corporate tax rates. Obama himself has admitted that, given the current economic circumstances, he wouldn't automatically repeal the Bush tax cuts, so he must have some inkling that raising taxes in the current situation is bad. Economic growth is necessary, or the whole structure falls. We've had approximately 25 years of economic expansion. We're much wealthier now than we were in 1983. Maybe we can afford the $700B, but we'll need something to offset the expense. That means dropping federal expenditures elsewhere (McCain wants to do that) or increasing incomes. "Stimulus checks" are not the answer, allowing people to keep more of their money is.

So: do a conservator-type bailout, decrease corporate/capital gains taxes, increase economic growth, restore confidence, and make the Bush individual tax rate cuts permanent. Maybe it would work. Maybe. But who's to stop this mess from happening again? Oy. I've got a headache. Time to stop thinking for the evening, I think.

Think Again

There has to be a way for citizens to "just say no" to this bailout. There has to be another answer than just a panic-driven $700 billion government takeover of the mortgage business. I've been told by various people that there is little that individuals can do but watch. I refuse to believe that. Call your Representative. Call your Senator. Email the White House. Tell them to go back to the drawing board and think of something else. If they were thinking like small-government types to begin with, they would have sought smaller, private-sector solutions from the get-go. If forced to it, I still believe that they can.

I wrote about some of the individual issues last night. While I accept the Bush administration's explanations for the current flash of instability, I don't accept their solution. I'm still convinced that there has to be another answer, or set of answers, that would allow the market to correct itself without socializing our economy. Wall Street claims to have the brightest capitalists and money people in the world. Certainly they have some ideas. The markets have been mixed in response to the bailout, perhaps because the traders have misgivings about socialism. Good. Let them come up with some solutions, not just the lawyers.

And why can't people calm down and try to think of a solution, or give the government time to think of a solution? Is it because thinking isn't sexy, not immediate enough? No doubt there are already people calling congressional offices and the White House switchboard and demanding that Washington DO SOMETHING. Well, then it falls to those of us who don't want to spend $700 billion with a damn good reason to be equally demanding and say (to quote Serenity), "If you can't do something smart, do something right."

The Current Financial Mess, Again Reconsidered

I spent some time today emailing back and forth with a couple folks, trying to assimilate the reality of the bailout. Father Dan explained to me the downside of the Leahy Doctrine (which states, "Better a sin of omission than a sin of commission"). And Bush actually did a fair job of explaining the situation in the financial sector to me:

• Banks were encouraged (or forced, if you believe talk radio) to offer loans to high-risk borrowers.
• These high-risk mortgages were packaged as financial funds and traded on the market. Because many of the mortgage-backed instruments were bought and backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, there was unusual and unwarranted confidence in their solvency.
• Bank executives made bonuses hand over fist by making money through continually growing assest based on these mortgage-based instruments, among other things.
• Cornerstone number one was pulled out when housing supply exceeded demand.
• Cornerstone number two was pulled when the high-risk borrowers (as some analysts in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae warned) defaulted, undermining the solvency of the assets based on those mortgage-based instruments.
• To stave off further losses, banks have tightened up credit, refusing to loan out more money.
• This slows down the ability of private individuals and businesses to borrow money to expand, make purchases, or obtain lines of credit or other loans.

So, again, what's the solution, if it isn't a $700B bail-out? We could, perhaps, address the individual problems rather than pay out huge sums of money:

• Executive compensation: This could be solved via the private sector, by tying bonuses and stock options to short-term and long-term performance. If you allow the government to set a ceiling on executive pay, then you're empowering them to set the wages for everyone. Maybe you. Do you want someone in Washington declaring that people in your particular profession will no longer be allowed to make more than X dollars per year?
• Tight money: The Fed could keep interest rates low to ease "tight money" policies by banks. This does not require action by the U.S. Congress.
• High-risk lending: Allow banks to tighten up requirements on borrowers, do background checks (God knows I got a thorough one) for people pursuing first-time mortgages, or eliminate interest-only, zero-down loans. This is a matter of reducing government regulations, not increasing them, while allowing the private sector to increase businesses' borrowing requirements. This is starting to happen already. Though it'll make car buying a little tougher, it'd still be easier to deal with than government actions would.
• Mortgage-based instruments: How many of these things are there? Again, what can the private sector do to prevent banks from investing in these types of things? This is a matter of corporate governance, not government action.
• Market corrections: If the market is reacting to a fall in housing prices due to increased supply, this is a normal market function. Gasoline prices are going up because of an increase in demand without a concurrent increase in supply. The government's "solution" for this is to try to force consumers to reduce their demand by cutting back their energy use, lifestyles, or economic activities rather than allow oil companies to increase supply, which would dramatically reduce the price. Obviously people in Washington understand supply and demand when they chose to. Rather than interfere with the market, why not just leave it alone?
• Individual responsibility: What could be done on an individual level to punish the guilty without spreading the misery? I don't know on this; I can't even guess. And I fail to understand the congressional Democrats' demand that people who defaulted on their mortgages be allowed to keep their homes. I fully expected that, if I didn't make my apartment/house/condo payments, I would get thrown out of my home. However, I do make the payments, do maintain my credit rating, and stay in my home. Why can't defaults be enforced, rather than rewarded?

*

I spent my drive home this evening screaming at the radio, especially when Bush said that "Democratic capitalism is the greatest system that has ever been created," and I replied incredulously, "Then why try to fix it with socialism?!??" Sigh.

*

Let this be a lesson to my Republican brethren: a "neo-conservative" is someone who, if they are willing to go overseas and remake other nations' societies, are just as willing to remake the society back home. A conservative wouldn't try either.

The Current Financial Mess, Again Reconsidered

Dr. Pournelle's turn:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2008/Q3/view537.html#Tuesday

Pournelle's take on this is interesting because he blends in a theme he's been discussing quite often of late: the criminalizing of political actions, which he states was one of the causes of the fall of the Roman Republic. If this sounds bizarre (criminializing politics), I direct your attention to the candidate for Vermont attorney general who promises to prosecute George W. Bush for actions he performed legally as President. Or consider the attempted prosecution of Bill Clinton, or the outrage that Democrats felt about Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he could be prosecuted. Pournelle examines this phenomenon in his usual logical detail.

I speculated on LinkedIn.com recently that it might be cheaper to let some of these large mortgage firms to fail and to pay out unemployment insurance to their workers than to let a trillion-dollar bailout go forward. However, a full-scale panic is on in Washington, as there's an election soon, and incumbents need to be seen DOING SOMETHING, even if that SOMETHING is very, very bad. Can we, as taxpayers, stop this madness? I don't really care for all the finger pointing ("It was Reagan's fault for deregulating the banking industry!" "No, it was Carter's and Clinton's fault for forcing banks to give loans to high-risk borrowers!"). However, it might be better for the country if the congress continues to argue from now until election day instead of passing this very, very bad and expensive idea.

Again: where will the money come from? Us. How will that come about? By printing more money and raising taxes. The illness (financial instability) is bad; the proposed cure (government takeover of the mortgage industry) is potentially much, much worse and will last much longer.

The Current Financial Mess, Reconsidered

I'll let Mr. Gingrich take on the issue today. The less I say, the better.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE5MmE0YmRiODA3YTRiNzFlN2FmNDU5N2I0ZDc3YTE=

Ex Nihilo, Ad Nihilo?

Seven hundred billion dollars:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425663,00.html

Wow. And I was raising hell earlier about $85 billion? Heck with that. The Latin translation of "Let there be light" is Fiat lux. Without explaining where the light came from (the Big Bang?), the statement simply means that a higher power has called something into being, and it was so.

Along similar lines, "fiat money" means that a higher power (in this case, the government) has said, "Let there be money," and lo, there is money. However, financial reality doesn't quite work that way. The federal budget is already bumping up against $3 trillion. This bail-out of financial institutions will kick it up around $4 trillion, or higher. Where's the money going to come from? There are a few possibilities: the government will print more money, the government will raise taxes, or both. This will make the dollar worth even less than the high-tech fibrous stuff it's printed on. Actually, my buddy Karl pointed out that it's probably been that way for awhile.

Just to put this foolishness back into space terms (I can do little else): in 1989, NASA proposed the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) architecture to Congress. It would have created a massive in-space infrastructure for building and maintaining spacecraft in orbit; built a permanent base on the Moon; and built a massive interplanetary vehicle for sending astronauts to explore and establish an outpost on Mars. The total price tag was $450 billion over 30 years! Congress choked, laughed, and told NASA "Fuhgeddaboudit!" They weren't going to pay that much for a 30-year space program, no way. Not worth it.

Now look at us. The government has just committed to spending nearly twice as much in a single day. For $700 billion, we could probably build a string of solar power satellites around the Earth; free ourselves of petroleum; build Discovery-class vehicles to explore the moons of Jupiter; design, test, and build a reusable launch vehicle; and build and launch the first interstellar probe, in addition to the current space program and the $450 billion program mentioned above. And we're using that money to do--what? Bail out a few banks? It's absurd and it's obscene.

Now...is one of those banks MINE? Maybe. I don't even know. I haven't heard that it's having trouble. But good Lord, where does it stop? One must ask where all this heading: socialism, fascism, or something worse? Ayn Rand states the differences between the two succinctly:

The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal. . . .

So what does one make of a federal "bailout" (takeover) of a large chunk of the economy--in fact, many of the very financial institutions that keep the economy working? That certainly constitutes public ownership, and hence a diminution of private property. However, we also theoretically still hold to the pretense of private property until we screw up in some fashion; then the government claims the right to take over and dispose of someone's property if they use it in a way that does not meet with the government's approval (e.g. building houses on "wetlands" or in places that are home to endangered species).

Or, rather than use politically loaded terms like socialism or fascism, we might as well say that the welfare state has just run amok. And who is willing or able to stop it? After all, it might be YOUR oxen that need rescue from goring next time--we mustn't upset the system. But really now: if the government can conjure up that kind of money ex nihilo (out of nothing), wouldn't it be nice if that money at least didn't GO ad nihilo (toward nothing)?

The Current Financial Mess and What It Means for Space

As if space advocates don't have enough to worry about, now we've got a shaky economy as well as a federal government willing to spend five times NASA's budget at the stroke of a pen to rescue one company (AIG) and one and a half times NASA's budget to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And if my discussions with liberal friends are any indications, we can expect more nationalizing of large businesses if there's a perception that not doing so would crash the economy.

Where are those strident voices asking, "Where is the money going to come from?" or "Shouldn't we be spending our money on more important things?" But of course what could be more important than "saving" the economy from individual and corporate bad decision making?

Back in college I had a history teacher who insisted that the Great Depression lasted as long as it did because "the government wasn't doing enough." Another theory suggests that the government was doing too much, and that the nationalization of banks and other activities, combined with a lot of make-work government jobs in fact extended the Depression. It is safe to say that both Marxist and Austrian economists agree that World War II got the U.S. out of the Depression, though they would pick different reasons--Marxists would focus on government spending (which was already going on under the New Deal), while classical economists would focus on the need for American goods overseas. In both cases, it was the private sector creating the jobs and employing people, regardless of who was in charge.

The next major economic crisis of the 20th century was the extended period of "Stagflation" in the 1970s and early 1980s under Nixon-Ford-Carter. Ronald Reagan's economic advisers took the dramatic step of reducing the top marginal tax rates. Using the so-called Laffer Curve, Reagan simultaneously increased economic activity and, counterintuitively, increased federal taxes. The deficits of the 1980s can be attributed partly to Reagan's defense buildup, but economic and political historians tend to ignore the simultaneous increases domestic, non-defense spending that were made possible by the tax cuts. Congressional lawmakers saw all the money flowing in, and couldn't resist feeding their own pet projects. Nevertheless, the Reagan tax rates held for ten years, and the U.S. has continued to benefit from them, even though the Clinton Administration raised the top marginal tax rate to 39.5% in 1993.

Now we're in another potentially ugly economic crisis, worse than the "Dot-com" mess of 2000 if some folks have their way, and the big choices will be there for the next president to make: increase taxes and direct handouts to citizens to pump more government money into the economy or decrease taxes ("make the Bush tax cuts permanent") and allow the productive classes to use their increased incomes to invest in more economic activity.

The economic history above is rather high-level, but it provides some of the context for spending on space. In 1990, the Cold War was ending, and the savings and loan industry was undergoing its own bailout. At approximately the same time, the Bush 41 Administration was proposing its Space Exploration Initiative to go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. We know the decisions of that time: citizens were rightly outraged at the amount of money being spent to rescue other people's bad decisions ($175 billion), but defenders of the action said it was necessary to stabilize the economy. Domestic spending was made a priority, and human space exploration was allowed to languish.

The lessons for the Constellation Program and for space advocates in general should be obvious. The S&L bailout did not stop people from making bad decisions, nor did it stop the government from bailing out businesses. However, it should be obvious which economic policies will allow the United States to continue spending money on space: only a rich nation can afford space travel. It is complex and expensive.

Taxing the rich even more will not increase or improve economic activity. The top 10% of income earners pay nearly 80% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3% of federal income taxes. And the odds are pretty good that folks in the bottom 50% are employed by folks in the upper 50%. So: the money that the top 10% pay for taxes does not go toward new investments, new businesses, or new jobs for others. Tax the rich, and you squeeze the poor, who find themselves unemployed and subjects of the welfare state, which only grows and grows, squeezing out all other forms of federal spending--including investments in science, technology, and space, which could actually create wealth.

We've got a big problem here, people: if the federal government's primary spending is on supporting individual consumption and medical care, that is money that will not be spent on basic infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc.), homeland defense and security, or critical investments in science and technology, never mind local pet projects and bridges to nowhere. And that is where we are heading. Therefore, it is not enough for space advocates to be single-issue voters and focus solely on which "space architecture" is going to best create a spacefaring civilization. We need to consider the economic and political environments in which those space architectures are being built. And lastly, we need to take a good, hard look--as citizens and taxpayers concerned about our common future--at what we can and cannot afford to do.

Increasing Blog Readership, Etc.

My dad (“Father Dan,” as he’s known, and no he’s not a priest) pointed me to Copyblogger.com, which has made a name for itself by providing advice to aspiring bloggers who want to increase their readership. Among the tips this blogger provides is to be “laser focused” on one particular topic.
Now I confess that I’ve got Google Analytics tracking the amount of traffic I get on this site, and I find it fascinating how many ways one can sort and sift the data. However, I’m doing this blog for my own pleasure. A writer who says they’re writing for others first is fibbing. I tried to stay focused on space-related topics. However, my interests are more varied than that. So I don’t look at this as a site for a particular type of writing, except mine. My interests include space, philosophy, politics, history, literature and the arts, management practices and behavior, and whatever catches my fancy on particular occasions (see my LibraryThing.com site for an idea of how my bookshelves are composed).
Some audiences don’t forgive “genre” writers for talking about other things outside the writer’s usual haunts. (“What’s Ellison doing writing mystery? I want to read more of his science fiction!”) That’s an unfortunate trait of the literary world—markets and bookshelves have become targeted. “General fiction” has given way to historical fiction, romance, science fiction, mystery, etc. Nonfiction has become very much the same way, with the internet accelerating this process. After all, if you’ve got specialized interests, you can add them to your “favorites” list, and surf around for only stuff that interests you or news or opinion that appeals to you. Woe to the writer who dares step outside his box. The dedicated reader of someone’s space columns or political analyses will breeze by the same blog or unsubscribe from it if the author starts blathering about human resources or his trip to Europe.
This, of course, is why Jeff Foust and Keith Cowing have a serious following in the aerospace community while I get sporadic hits depending on how useful or pertinent my work has been on a given day. They can stay focused. Good for them. I prefer to write, as well and as interestingly as possible (I hope), about whatever’s on my mind. I average 10 readers per day, and I’m cool with that, because odds are I know all 10 of them. In short, I’m an amateur, and comfortable with that.
However, as Gary Cooper said as Howard Roark in the movie version of The Fountainhead, “Before you can do things for people, you must love the doing.” My buddy Jason calls blogging an exercise in “sharpening the saw,” a reference to Steven Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, and I tend to agree. To be a writer, you must write. And if you take yourself seriously as a professional, the late Robert A. Heinlein would tell you that you must sell what you write. I once had aspirations of being a science fiction writer. Now I settle for the comfortable and more natural role of nonfiction and opinion writer. If I’m not particularly sharp about anticipating the future, I can at least take a good crack at analyzing the present. Since I’m not making any money from this adventure in internet blathering, again, I must consider myself an amateur. There will come a day when that is NOT the case, but it is not today.
So if you’re reading this and have an interest in blogging and NOT being an amateur, by all means, go visit Copyblogger.com and go forth and conquer. I will continue doing what I’m doing, happily and without pay because I enjoy the doing.

Character and Leadership

Whoever said "Character is destiny" had it dead right. People's personalities start to form and make themselves known early: a whiny child will often become a whiny adult; an adventurous child will often end up doing extreme sports later in life. So, too, I know that some behaviors I exhibited in elementary school have not left. Some have, which I'd like to consider "growth," but others have begun to harden and are unlikely to change no matter what classes I take or how many church services I attend.

This has come home to me more and more recently, as I've been leading HAL5's bid to get the NSS Board meeting here in Huntsville, on the way toward bidding on the 2011 ISDC. Slight quirks of behavior that create minor inconveniences when they affect my own work alone can be multiplied when exhibited in a group. I'll start with my strengths because I could use the boost and because I'll spend quite enough time on my weaknesses eventually.

Strengths

• Confidence. I have enough strength of character to feel that I can or should be in charge. This confidence also helps me represent the group. I'm relatively fearless (so I'm told) when it comes to speaking in front of groups or introducing myself for networking purposes. Good. We'll need that.
• Positive attitude: This is something that's relatively new. I still have my moments of pessimism (see below), but my default position is not a Charlie Brownish defeatism.
• Intelligence: Not to brag overmuch, but I've got a good memory and a good capacity for planning, strategic, and creative thought. Again, good things to have.
• Humility: I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and will readily apologize for flashes of temper, sometimes even before someone else has taken offense.
• Experience: I've had a variety of experiences in the activities needed to put a convention together, including leading large and small groups, working in conventions and hotels at Disney, and attending good and bad conferences often enough to know what I want or don't want.
• Competence: I do my jobs well because I take them seriously and have a strong desire for, if not perfection, at least high quality.

Weaknesses

• Stress: It has been brought to my attention more than once that I don't hide my feelings well. When I'm not particularly happy, my face follows suit. I lose my happy-go-lucky attitude and get snarky. Not nasty, necessarily, just cranky. The side effect of getting stressed is that it interferes with my logic and ability to plan or maintain my positive attitude.
• Opinionated/Tactless: I often have strong opinions about things, usually backed up by facts or reasonable-sounding arguments. That doesn't mean they're right all the time, of course, and sometimes, when irritated, I will make some sort of smart-@$$ comment that hurts feelings or insults others. I usually do this in "off-duty" mode, when I think I'm "off stage." However, leaders are never off stage, unless to their closest friends and family. Everyone else continually judges them. Harsh language off-duty and happy talk on duty can and are perceived as two-faced. Best to keep my unvarnished opinions to myself.
• Limited Ability to Delegate: Being the hypercompetent type, I don't trust that everyone will do things as well as I would. As a result, I take too much upon myself, leading to overload and stress (see above). This was, a caring coworker told me gently today, is one of the worst characteristics a leader can have. Point taken.
• Impatience: This feeds a lot of different things, such as being deadline-driven (not always realistically). I don't suffer fools, unreasoning resistance, or petty arguing well. I'm better than I used to be, scary as that sounds, but I need to "balance my chi."

The same friend who took me to task for not delegating suggested that I focus on Servant Leadership, which I read back when I had too much free time at Disney. "You need to make it about them. If you demonstrate that they'll be able to fulfill their dreams by doing what you want, they'll be more willing to follow you. You make it about you, you're finished." Ow. 'Tis true, but I needed to hear it. Guess I'll have to pick up that book again, read it, and live it. Now I just need to figure out how to get my "stressing out" or "getting spun up" behavior under control. Hm.

Anti-Nuclear Activist Decides to Take On the National Space Society

Caveat: The opinions expressed below are strictly my own and do not reflect those of the National Space Society, the Huntsville Alabama L5 Society, or anybody else concerned that I'm shooting from the hip. I am, mind you, but I'll own up to it. My comments are in italics.

Here's a link designed to annoy me:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/SPACE-MOVEMENT--WHICH-SID-by-Bruce-K-Gagnon-080910-499.html

The National Space Society (NSS) is talking about building a "space movement." The organization is heavily funded by weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Honeywell, Northrup Grumman, Aerojet and others. About support from these corporate giants NSS says, "By supporting NSS, these companies have shown their commitment to strong citizen involvement in our nation's space program."

And just what do these aerospace corporations want in return for funding this "grassroots space movement?" They are asking NSS to lobby for massive federal expenditures to move the arms race into space, to fund the space technology infrastructure to put mining colonies on the moon and Mars, and to support the development of space-based solar power technology that would put centralized solar production in corporate hands rather than development of decentralized solar technologies on homes and businesses back here on Mother Earth.

Re: moving the arms race into space

This has been going on since the 1970s or 1980s, when the Soviets used a laser to "blind" one of our satellites. Somehow, when the U.S. decides to shoot back, it's always our fault for "militarizing" space. As witness the U.S. ASAT test, in response to the Chinese shooting down one of its old satellites. Funny how that happens.

In any case, the NSS is much more interested in sending people than weapons into space. I for one have no moral objection to my country of birth defending itself in any environment where its people work or reside, but that's another argument altogether. Regardless--our primary emphasis is on the peaceful exploration, development, and settlement of space. Many of our writings have suggested that the vast resources of space--energy, materials, what have you--might make everyone on Earth so rich that resource wars become unnecessary. We hope ardently for such a future.

As one NSS leader puts it, citizen involvement in space drives power at the Congressional "negotiating table for funding."

No advocacy movement worth its sodium chloride is without lobbying or voter education efforts. How much money do people protesting nuclear power have at their disposal? Our annual legislative "blitzes" are done by private citizens on their own dime.

Because of the growing budget deficit in the U.S., the weapons industry worries that space technology funding will take a hit. They are now moving to preempt that problem.

The space technology budget will take a hit regardless--there's more than the deficit to worry about. There are unfunded entitlement commitments ("Socialized medicine, dude!") that will send the deficit from the upper troposphere to the ionosphere in my lifetime. Space activities--military or no--are among the few things that are considered "discretionary," and thus subject to cuts. It's easier to face down a few hundred thousand scientists and engineers than a few million cranky grandparents in need of their meds.

With heavy funding from the industry the NSS is undertaking a "five year Strategic Plan" and "building a stronger Space Movement is a key component of that plan."

As my pal Jim Plaxco notes ably in the responses below the post, NSS does NOT receive the majority of its funding from corporate sponsors, nor are all of those sponsors are involved entirely in defense activities. And once again I must take exception to the author's automatic disparagement of defense companies as fundamentally immoral. They provide the tools that allow our volunteer military to defend this great nation of ours. The companies and their employees bear a heavy burden, and they know it quite well.

NSS says, "Recently, the space community has become concerned about the relatively low level of support for space among America's youth....In order to strengthen the Movement, additional emphasis will be placed on chapter development and grassroots organization. We will not only appeal to people via intellectual argument, but also to their emotions through the use of space art and other media."

Naturally we are trying to reach new audiences. I myself have written several papers and presentations on the subject of targeting specific audiences to broaden the appeal of space exploration messages. Heck, that's how I got my master's degree! Is that wrong? I think not.

The aerospace industry understands how things work. If you want to control the discussion and change public perception, then you must create the grassroots thunder. NSS confirms this by saying, "The media, the public, politicians, and historians all view something to be of greater importance when it is a movement as compared to when it is not."

So, what? Space advocates aren't allowed to advocate for space, but anti-nuclear activists are allowed to advocate against nuclear power? How arbitrary. NSS does not receive "marching orders" from Bethesda or Chicago. Our policy discussions are often freewheeling, strenuous, and heated, but they are NOT focused on who's getting money for what.-

And since there is not presently a "pro-space movement" the industry has decided to create one.

On the contrary. The National Space Society traces its roots back to the L5 Society and the National Science Institute, both of which came to being as grass-roots organizations of private citizens in 1975. L5 and NSI merged in the late 1980s to become NSS. Often the organization has struggled. If we were so much in the pockets of, beholden to, and funded by, these rather profitable aerospace/defense companies, we would have succeeded better than we have to date. Some, but not most, of our officers are employed by "Big Aerospace." We are doing this for the most part on our own dimes, giving of both our time and treasure. This is a non-profit organization we belong to, not another large conglomerate, for gosh sakes!

There is much money to be made if the public can be convinced that we should spend our dwindling tax dollars on space technology. The Mars Society says that the Earth is a rotting, dying, stinking planet and that we must move our civilization to Mars and that Congress must appropriate funds to "terraform" Mars. And what does terraform mean? It means turning the dusty dry red planet into a replica of the Earth - alive and green and habitable. Just imagine how much that would cost? Imagine the profits for the aerospace corporations to be given such a mission.

Yes, there is money to be made in investments in space technology. But there are also benefits to be had. The author is described as a Vietnam-era veteran. I'd venture to say that many of his comrades in arms have benefitted from medical advances derived directly from the space program. Subsequent soldiers have had their lives saved by "eyes in the sky" (satellites) or reduced the number of civilian casualties in a combat zone by using GPS-guided smart bombs instead of manually guided weapons.

As far as the Mars Society's suggestion that we're rotting, I'd take issue with that as well (I give my time and treasure to them as well--without a lot of subsidy from "Big Defense"). TMS believes that our species would be better off having more than one world upon which to live in case we're whacked by an asteroid or some other threat preventable by our defense industry. And as for terraforming Mars, I'd like nothing better, but that is hardly an aerospace activity only. Getting there? Sure. But transforming a frozen, lifeless, nearly airless ball of rock into someplace comfortable for human habitation will require nearly every science we have, and a bunch we haven't come up with yet. And jeez, man, can't you at least see the value, the glory, the greatness in such a transformation?

Space technology development is very expensive. Just one illustration - the International Space Station was originally supposed to cost the public $10 billion, but the price tag has grown to over $100 billion and it is not yet finished. By the time the space station is completed it will be an outdated technology and on we will go to the next round. Already the aerospace industry is working on the successor programs to the space shuttle and the space station. But in order to get these massive projects funded it must create a citizens base - a movement.

Point taken on the International Space Station. It has undergone many redesigns and partner changes, which have resulted in higher costs. But that was the nature of the process, not solely the technology itself. If ISS were to be used to facilitate commerce in Earth orbit and exploration beyond Earth orbit, then it will have fulfilled its purpose and perhaps even made a return on our national investment. A movement was not needed to keep ISS flying; congressional support was, and it survived its last fight by a margin of one vote. If Mr. Gagnon is so against ISS and believes so little in its potential, perhaps he'd like us to hand the keys over to the Russians or the Chinese when it's finally completed. I'm willing to bet that a lot more than NSS's 20,000 members will rise up to protest.

Some years ago I attended a pro-space development conference at Cape Canaveral in Florida. I went to a workshop on Mars where the speaker was the head of the tourist facility at the Kennedy Space Center. Why him, what did he know about Mars? His message was simple - unless we get the kids, who will be taxpayers in 20 years, to support these space missions to the moon and Mars, we are sunk. So, he said, we are doing a complete renovation of the space center tourist facility on a Mars theme and increasing our efforts to bring school children into the space center.

If you don't understand what it takes to interest and motivate young people to stretch their brains, I won't try to explain it to you. Suffice to say that a hands-on, interactive environment is precisely the sort of thing that might--I do not say must--spark the imaginations of young people. I helped develop a proposal for the Mars Society that would create exactly that. Even if the kids don't decide to become astronauts, they might become doctors, mathematicians, chemists, computer programmers, or any of a thousand other occupations that are necessary to maintain this nation's competitiveness and standard of living. By the way, who do you think will develop the next computer that allows you to blog? One might hope that it's an American.

On the other side we have the Global Network organizing international opposition to these plans for "everything space". We understand that we can't have social progress in the U.S. and pay for "everything space" at the same time. We are also hearing from our GN affiliated groups in Sweden, England, France, South Korea, Italy, Australia, Japan, India, and other nations that their countries are being dragged into the space technology game because the U.S. needs allies to help fund this very expensive new direction. The challenge becomes global as we try to hang onto our national resources to protect life for the future generations right here on planet Earth.

Ah. At last we come to the heart of it. Mr. Gagnon represents a group that is against placing anything nuclear-powered into space. This includes batteries for things like Voyager and Cassini, which have vastly increased our appreciation and understanding of the universe. It might interest you to know that one of the grassroots chapters of the National Space Society--to its credit--organized a counter-protest in support of Cassini when it was launched in the 1990s. And the world has been richer for them: the counter-protest and the Cassini probe itself.

Yes indeed, we do need a space movement. It's just a matter of which kind we need. And the real question each of us must answer is "which side are you on?"

This hardly requires answering.

If you want a space program that will only go as far as hyper-non-polluting propellants and batteries conceived in conditions of peace will take us, then you are restricting the human race to the Earth and the Moon. Mind you, there are solar sails and other "green" space exploration products that could be sent into space, but that hardware has often been developed by "defense" companies and other such suspicious characters.

If you want a space program that goes farther (boldly!) and achieves more, then you might consider joining the National Space Society. We support a peaceful, expansive, high-technology society of free peoples living and working beyond Earth orbit. And we might be just a little safer, to boot.

The McCain Campaign Responds to the Science Debate

Darlene the Science Cheerleader gave me a heads-up today that John McCain's campaign staff has responded to the Science Debate 2008 people. Being who I am, I could not resist reading or responding. On the whole, it's about what I expected, given McCain's voting record: there are things I like and things I don't like, which is about what one would expect from a conservative (me) responding to "maverick" moderate (McCain).

1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
I have a broad and cohesive vision for the future of American innovation. My policies will provide broad pools of capital, low taxes and incentives for research in America, a commitment to a skilled and educated workforce, and a dedication to opening markets around the globe. I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe.

Okay, great. Private-sector research funding could use the boost and incentives. However, what will you do about federal spending on basic science and technology R&D? The private sector will only research those things that are practical or likely to see a profit.

Transformative information and communications technologies permeate every aspect of our daily lives. In the last decade, there has been an explosion in the ways Americans communicate with family, friends, and business partners; shop and connect with global markets; educate themselves; become more engaged politically; and consume and even create entertainment. America has led the world into this technology revolution because we have enabled innovation to take root, grow, and prosper. Nurturing technology and innovation is essential for solving the critical problems facing our country: developing alternative fuels, addressing climate change, encouraging commercialization of new technologies, deploying technology to manage cost and enable new jobs, stopping the spiraling expense of health care, and better educating our children and our workforce.

All true. What are you going to do about it?

I am uniquely qualified to lead our nation during this technological revolution. While in the Navy, I depended upon the technologies and information provided by our nation’s scientists and engineers with (could’ve used a better editor) during each mission. I am the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee plays a major role in the development of technology policy, specifically any legislation affecting communications services, the Internet, cable television and other technologies. Under my guiding hand, Congress developed a wireless spectrum policy that spurred the rapid rise of mobile phones and Wi-Fi technology that enables Americans to surf the web while sitting at a coffee shop, airport lounge, or public park.

Good.

Above all, my commitment to innovation is a commitment to the well-established entrepreneurial spirit and creativity of America’s thinkers and tinkerers whose inventions have improved our lives and promoted prosperity. To maintain American leadership, I believe we must nurture the conditions under which entrepreneurs can continue to prosper by bringing new innovators to market and the American people can reap the rewards. As President, I will ---
• Focus on addressing national needs to make the United States a leader in developing, deploying, and exporting new technologies;
• Utilize the nation’s science and technology infrastructure to develop a framework for economic growth both domestically and globally;

Will you spend more on that infrastructure if it’s required?

• Appoint a Science and Technology Advisor within the White House to ensure that the role of science and technology in policies is fully recognized and leveraged, that policies will be based upon sound science, and that the scientific integrity of federal research is restored;
Is this another jab at NASA for the James Hansen thing?
• Eliminate wasteful earmarks in order to allocate funds for science and technology investments;
I think I read somewhere that you were going to take earmark spending and use it on space. Why not just ax the earmarks, period?
• Fund basic and applied research in new and emerging fields such as nanotechnology and biotechnology, and in greater breakthroughs in information technology;

Good.

• Promote greater fiscal responsibility by improving the scientific and engineering management within the federal government;

Good luck with that.

• Encourage and facilitate commercialization of new innovations, especially those created from federally funded research;

The emphasis on developing technology / engineering / applied research is fine, but the fundamental research must still be done.

• Ensure U.S. leadership in space by promoting an exploration agenda that will combine the discoveries of our unmanned probes with new technologies to take Americans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond;

Huzzah!

• Grow public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools;

Good luck with that. How about spending more on gifted programs?

• Leverage technologies to create employment in rural areas and deploy the displaced workforce;
• Create greater transparency in government and encourage more citizens-government dialogs using current technology; and

Does this mean a more citizen-centric Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)?

• Develop and implement a global competitive agenda through a series of business roundtables with industry and academia leaders.

2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate. The same fossil-fuels that power our economic engine also produced greenhouse gases that retain heat and thus threaten to alter the global climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all, the need to avoid the consequences of global warming. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly.

Well, I see you’ve accepted the global warming premise up front…

To dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I will institute a new cap-and-trade system that over time will change the dynamic of our energy economy.

Boo. Yes, this will change the dynamic of our economy. It will slow it down more than it is now. Cap and trade will not be accepted or used by the next two biggest polluters, China and India, so all it will do is slow down the United States. Cap & trade will slow the economy by reducing how much energy we can use. That means a lot less economic activity will be occurring. A slower economy will not be able to afford the taxes that will allow us “to go to the Moon and do the other things” (JFK).

By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emissions, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In doing this, we will transition into a low carbon energy future while promoting the technological innovations that keep us on a course of economic growth. The purpose of this approach is to give American businesses new incentives and rewards to seek cheaper emission reductions, instead of just new taxes to pay and new regulations to follow.

Well, if you must do this, carrots are a better way to do it than sticks.

This approach gives people time to adapt, instead of causing a sudden jolt to electricity bills and potential shutdowns of tradition coal-fired plants.I have long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. But I believe that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to promote the development of fuel-efficient vehicles. I will strengthen the penalties for violating CAFE standards, and make certain they are effectively enforced.

What happened to incentives and rewards?

To bolster research efforts, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. A McCain administration would establish a permanent research and development tax credit equal to ten percent of wages spent on R&D, to open the door to a new generation of environmental entrepreneurs. I am also committed to investing two billion dollars every year for the next 15 years on clean coal technologies, to unlock the potential of America's oldest and most abundant resource.

No, no, no! Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. Just fund the basic research and let the market determine the best method(s).

And we will issue a Clean Car Challenge to automakers, in the form of a tax credit to the American people, for every automaker who can sell a zero-emission vehicle. We will commit up to a 5,000 dollar tax credit to each and every customer who buys that car.

If I’m reading this right, your assumption is to give a tax credit to Citizen A so that s/he will be more likely to buy Zero Emission Vehicle B. Interesting, but I’m not sure if that will be enough to encourage the automakers to do what environmentalists want. Though, in their defense, they’re already building hybrids at a rapid clip anyway.

In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success. I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. -- a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency – and curb the dangerous effects of global climate change.

This is truly amazing. If a presidential candidate is open to using large prizes to do great things on Earth, why not in space? For example, $5 billion for a reusable spacecraft or $10 billion for a lunar base?

I will continue to support the US Global Change Research Program and ensure that the program’s activities support the Nation’s needs for climate related information to help it prepare for the future.

3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
Over time, I believe that we must reform our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources that meet the multiple shared objective of promoting environmental, economic and national security. One of the prevailing issues of our time and the next presidency will be how to deal with the issues of energy security and sustainability. It is important that we shift to sustainable, clean burning energy sources or advance to technologies that make our more traditional resources cleaner burning.As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

Good!

Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use.

What about opening the nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain?

In the progress of other alternative energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric --government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity.

Could, but unlikely. Wind power is unlikely. When it’s a calm day, people will still need to rely on more conventional power systems.

And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. I've voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I'm signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served. We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.I will also commit the federal government to a prosperous clean technology agenda and to becoming the world leader in green technologies. Americans have always been the world's leaders in innovation, and it's time for our economy to adapt and take an active role in the new green international economy. These investments by government into basic research along with aggressive and realistic targets for greenhouse gas emissions will be critical in spurring revolutionary innovations in energy that will, over the long term, reduce energy costs and increase economic growth.

Once these investments are proven, we need to bring the cost down to get them into the hands of nations that would otherwise increase worldwide emissions. This might include some foreign aid for nations that cannot afford even discounted new technologies.

4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

My Administration will promote economic policies that will spur economic growth and a focus on an innovative economy. Critical to these efforts is the creation of the best trained, best prepared workforce to drive this economy through the 21st century. America’s ability to compete in the global market is dependent on the availability of a skilled workforce. Less than 20 percent of our undergraduate students obtaining degrees in math or science, and the number of computer science majors have fallen by half over the last eight years. America must address these trends in education and training if it hopes to compete successfully. But I believe that education is an ongoing process. Thus our nation’s education system should not only focus on graduating new students; we must also help re-train displaced workers as they prepare for the rapidly evolving economy. Invigorating our community college system is a good place to start. For example, recognizing this, I have long supported grants for educational instruction in digital and wireless technologies, targeted to minorities and low-income students who may not otherwise be exposed to these fields. Beyond the basics of enabling every student to reach their potential, our country is faced with a critical shortage of students with specific skills fundamental to our ability to compete globally.The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees. We must move aggressively to provide opportunities from elementary school on, for students to explore the sciences through laboratory experimentation, science fairs and competitions.

The dysfunctions are occurring between 4th and 12th grades. Focusing on bringing everyone up to “C” level does little for the kids who are already B and A students. We can’t neglect the bright in our efforts to help the slow. We also can’t bring out the creativity or brilliance of kids who have been medicated to weed out restless behavior. Before medication, we had something called discipline. Then the parents brought in lawyers, and now we have overmedicated kids and teachers afraid to give troublemakers a dirty look, much less a reprimand.

We must bring private corporations more directly into the process, leveraging their creativity, and experience to identify and maximize the potential of students who are interested and have the unique potential to excel in math and science.

This almost sounds like privatizing the schools, which is pretty radical. Is he willing to support school vouchers, too?

We must strengthen skills of existing science and math teachers through training and education, through professional development programs and community colleges.

True. We should also allow professionals conversant with math, science, or technology to teach without going through the process of getting an “education” degree.

I believe we must provide funding for needed professional teacher development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today’s technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.I will devote 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for high performing teachers to locate in the most challenging educational settings, for teachers to teach subjects like math and science, and for teachers who demonstrate student improvement. Payments will be made directly to teachers. Funds should also be devoted to provide performance bonuses to teachers who raise student achievement and enhance the school-wide learning environment. Principals may also consider other issues in addition to test scores such as peer evaluations, student subgroup improvements, or being removed from the state’s “in need of improvement” list.

Good luck fighting the NEA on this.

I will allocate $250 million through a competitive grant program to support states that commit to expanding online education opportunities.

Where's this money coming from?

States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of AP Math, Science, and Computer Sciences courses, online tutoring support for students in traditional schools, and foreign language courses.I will also continue to support STEM education programs at NSF, DOE, NASA, and NOAA. These scientific agencies can and should play a key role in the education of its future engineers and scientists. These agencies have the opportunity to add a practical component to the theoretical aspects of the students' educational process.

5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?
I have been a tireless advocate of our military and ensuring that our forces are properly postured, funded, and ready to meet the nation's obligations both at home and abroad. I have fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary, and to see that our forces are capable and ready to undertake the variety of missions necessary to meet national security objectives.As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

This assumes that our alliances need shoring up.

We are benefiting today from technology that was invented for military use a quarter of a century ago (e.g. the Internet, email, GPS, Teflon). And today, the American military has some of the most advanced technologies in the world to support them as they defend America’s interest. We need to ensure that America retains the edge in the most strategic areas and I will continue to encourage this with advanced R&D research funding.

What about technologies to improve our border, port, and transportation security?

6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

It is impossible to know whether the H5N1 virus will cause a human pandemic. The widespread nature of H5N1 in birds, the high mortality rates in exposed humans, and the likelihood of mutations over time have illustrated, however, the potentially catastrophic consequences that could arise from a pandemic, whether it arises from the current H5N1 strain or a different strain of the virus. That awareness requires the international community, the federal government, state and local governments, the health care industry, research community and the business community to develop and implement strategies to address this threat. The positive news is that such efforts are underway. They need continued development and attention, however, because by their very nature pandemics have the potential to overwhelm society’s response capabilities. There are many common elements to the strategies needed to address pandemics and biological attacks; however, elements of the strategies differ, because we must focus more on containment and response with respect to the former, and prevention and early detection with respect to the latter.When faced with a global pandemic, the United States must have in place and implement a layered strategy to save lives and protect the continuity of a functioning society. First, we must limit the spread of disease to the United States. Second, we must limit the spread of disease within the United States. This must be accomplished at the community level with strategies that have worked in past pandemics and can be adapted to a current crisis. Third, we must mitigate symptoms of the disease and minimize suffering and death with effective treatments and countermeasures. And fourth, we must maintain a functioning economy, public service sector and community.The strategy requires a focus on: preparedness (the activities that should be undertaken before a pandemic to ensure preparedness); communication (the roles and responsibilities of all levels of government and segments of society); surveillance and detection ( both domestic and international systems that provide continuous situational awareness to ensure the earliest warning possible to protect the population); and response and containment (actions to limit the spread of the outbreak and to mitigate the health, social and economic impacts of a pandemic).Similar response capabilities would be necessary if a deliberate biological attack were to occur; but the best defense is deterring the attack from the outset. We must focus on efforts to disrupt and prevent attacks by terrorist groups like al-Qaeda through robust intelligence and counter-terrorism capabilities. If an attack were to occur, we must be ready.

True.

Medical surveillance and biological detection technology continues to advance rapidly, but it is not where we need it to be. Samples from currently-deployed detectors must be collected by hand and analyzed in laboratories. This can mean that up to 30 hours elapses between when a biological agent is released and when it is analyzed and identified in a lab. We need to continue to develop and facilitate the development of next generation automated detectors that can analyze as well as sample biological agents and feed information real-time to public heath and emergency management officials.For both pandemics and biological attacks, our final and perhaps most important line of defense are effective medical countermeasures. We must fund research and development of new medicines and vaccines and make sure that we have adequate stockpiles of countermeasures and a robust and well thought out distribution plan in case crisis strikes.

7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

Genetic research holds great promise, but also demands great responsibility. We stand on the threshold of life-changing breakthroughs shepherded by the human genome project. I share in the wonder that unlocking the human genetic code affords and the life-changing treatments and therapies it could allow. But this discovery should inspire restraint to equal to its promise to ensure nascent discoveries are not abused. As genetic research becomes increasingly deployed, the need to ensure privacy of human records will become all the more essential, as will be the rigor to ensure there is no genetic discrimination. The scientific potential and ethical issues associated with genetics are important and complex enough that I will actively seek out the wise counsel of experts about how to ensure that we are best serving the needs of the American peopleGenetic research can already provide real assistance for those in some of the poorest regions who lack access to adequate food sources. Through increased research and development, we can help foster a new Green Revolution like the one that transformed Asia several decades ago. In partnership with government institutions, our colleges and universities should help train a new generation of African agro-scientists. Our aid programs should help focus on research into higher-yielding crops and make investments in infrastructure that will help farmers increase their yields and deliver their products to market.

I asked this same question of Obama: The EU has taken a strong stand against genetically modified food products. What is McCain prepared to do to address those objections?

8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress.

Um…okay, this is a double-faced answer if I’ve ever seen one.

Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic. I also support funding for other research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research which hold much scientific promise and do not involve the use of embryos.

Good.

I oppose the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes and I voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

Good. Of course if you endorse the latter two statements, why don’t you just come right out and oppose embryonic stem cell research? You’re not exactly giving folks a lot of leeway to conduct the research anyway.

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?

As a former Navy officer I was constantly reminded of the power, wonder and complexity of our world’s oceans. As Americans we are blessed by our location, surrounded by two of the world’s great Oceans, along with the magnificent Great Lakes along our Northern border. Oceans and coastal waters provide us with critical resources, hours of recreation and protection. The environmental health of the oceans and the Great Lakes is a complex, multi-faceted issue requiring attention and action from numerous perspectives. It requires effective coastal zone and watershed management, both point and non-point water pollution management, and more effective fisheries management. It requires coordination and action by local, state and federal government agencies, by addressing issues like invasive aquatic species to agricultural runoff. It is one of the more complex management challenges facing the environment because the ocean ecosystem is affected by so many different activities and sources under so many different management jurisdictions – from sewage discharge treatment facilities, to air pollution depositions, to climate change. For example, the “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico which appears every summer does not result from human activities in the Gulf of Mexico, but from human activities across the Mid-West. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has provided government leaders with an “Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century” that has many good ideas; however, even it struggled with the enormity of the management challenge that lies before us, and recognized that there are no easy answers.

I’ll need to read this before passing judgment. It would be nice to know where he’s getting his inputs/ideas, though.

This is at least partly due to the fact that so many of the human activities that adversely affect ocean health are not “ocean activities”, but are landside activities. Regional and ecosystem management concepts are easy to talk about, but are complicated to implement effectively, and they depend of obtaining a commitment from various necessary stakeholders. Ocean health and policy requires better management focus; however, we also need a better scientific understanding of the oceans. In no area is this truer than in obtaining a better understanding of the interaction of climate change and the oceans. We need to better understand the ocean’s role in the carbon cycle, in the effects of the massive amount of fresh water resulting from the melting of polar ice, which could dramatically affect global weather patterns, and in the effects of warmer ocean waters on weather – especially coastal storms - and on marine life. Ocean science and engineering is a field that deserves greater attention and focus.

Although I have served the State of Arizona in the United States Senate, I have always had an enormous attraction to and appreciation for our oceans. Their health requires an increased focus and commitment from all Americans, not just from those who derive their livelihood from them or live on theirs shores.

10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

As a westerner, I understand the vital role that water plays in the development of western economies and to maintaining a high quality of life. Water is truly our lifeblood. I believe that we must develop, manage, and use our limited water supplies wisely and with a conservation ethic to ensure that we have sufficient supplies to meet municipal, tribal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and environmental needs. I believe that water rights must be respected, and that disputes are better resolved not in the courts but through negotiations that build consensus, and provide justly for the needs of the west’s diverse interests and needs. I understand the importance of state law and local prerogatives in the allocation of water resources, and that all levels of government must work together with stakeholders to ensure that our lifeblood is protected, managed, and utilized in a wise, just, and sustainable manner.

Good.

I support constructive, continuing cooperation and dialogue among the states and the water users in a manner that is fully consistent with existing compacts and agreements. This is an approach that is forward looking, and ensures cooperation in achieving implementation of water agreements among the states and the Department of the Interior and is mindful of potential technological developments that could potentially reduce water demands in certain areas.

He’s treating this like a local/state issue. Good.

11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

The real question is whether we can afford not to.

Sha-ZAAAAM!!! Best answer yet.

We must ensure that we have a balanced approach to our space investments along with proper management controls.

“Balanced” how? I’ve commented on this previously. A “balanced” space program in the Congress usually means that any increase in the NASA budget must be shared equally (on a percentage basis) amongst all of the Directorates, rather than prioritized. Likewise, if there is a cut to the NASA budget, a “balanced” approach would make certain that everybody’s oxen are gored equally.

Today, we rely more upon our space based assets than at any other time in history. We need the technological advances of these systems to effectively address tremendous challenges such as climate change. Failure to properly address these problems will have devastating effects on the future of the planet.

For the past 50 years, space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development, and national innovation, pride and power (the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon). Spurred on by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the world's first satellite, and the concern that the U.S was falling behind in science and technology, U.S. policymakers enacted several policy actions to firmly establish the U.S. dominance in science and technology. Among them were the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the national Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), increased research funding, and a reformulation of the nation's science and technology education system. Today, more than 50 years after Sputnik, the US faces a very different world.

The end of the Cold War and the space race has greatly reduced the profile of space exploration as a point of national pride and an emblem of U.S. power and thus created some degree of "mission-rut" for NASA. At the same time, the scientific community views the use of space as an important observation platform for advancing science by increasing our understanding of the solar system and the universe. In addition, our recent comprehension of the Earth's changing climate is based on data that we have received from our weather and Earth observation satellites. Much of our communications infrastructure is dependent upon space based assets that are essential to the quality of our everyday lives and the economy.

China, Russia, India, Japan and Europe are all active players in space exploration. Both Japan and China launched robotic lunar orbiters in 2007. India is planning to launch a lunar orbiter later this year. The European Space Agency (ESA) is looking into a moon-lander, but is more focused on Mars. China also is actively pursuing a manned space program and, in 2003, became only the third country after the USSR and the US to demonstrate the capability to send man to space. China is developing plans for a manned lunar mission in the next decade and the establishment of a lunar base after 2020.

Activity within the commercial sector continues to increase beyond the traditional role of launching satellites. In 2007, the X-Prize Foundation announced a prize of $30 million in a global competition to build the first robotic rover capable of landing on the Moon. Several companies are planning to develop and build spacecraft for space tourism.I understand the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader. Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride. History provides some guide to this.

In 1971, when the Nixon Administration was looking at canceling the Apollo program and not approving the development of the Space Shuttle - then Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Casper Weinberger stated that such a policy: "would be confirming in some respects a belief that I fear is gaining credence at home and abroad: That our best years are behind us, that we are turning inward, reducing our defense commitments, and voluntarily starting to give up our super-power status and our desire to maintain world superiority." Three and a half decades later this seems equally valid, if not more so given the increased number of countries that are making significant investments in space.I have been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research. I also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident. I also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility. Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS. I have called on the Bush Administration to suspend its decommissioning of the shuttle until the next President is in office, and to retain the option of continuing shuttle flights to the ISS in the interim period until the Ares/Orion vehicle is in service.

As President, I will --
• Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
• Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
• Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;
• Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized; Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
• Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
• Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
• Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research; and ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.

The rest of this statement is taken directly from the last McCain policy statement on space. There is nothing new here.

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

We have invested huge amounts of public funds in scientific research. The public deserves to have the results of that research. Our job as elected officials is to develop the policies in response to those research results. Many times our research results have identified critical problems for our country. Denial of the facts will not solve any of these problems. Solutions can only come about as a result of a complete understanding of the problem. I believe policy should be based upon sound science. Good policy development will make for good politics. I support having a science and technology advisor within the White House staff and restoring the credibility and role of OSTP as an office within the White House structure. I will work to fill early in my Administration both the position of Science Adviser and at least four assistant directors within OSTP. I am committed to asking the most qualified scientists and engineers to join not only my OSTP, but all of the key technical positions in my Administration.Integrity is critical in scientific research. Scientific research cannot succeed without integrity and trust. My own record speaks for integrity and putting the country first, not political agendas.

He nicely sidesteps the question. Perhaps it’s because he didn’t want to answer it, or perhaps he believes--as I do--that the question is bogus.

13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

With spending constraints, it will be more important than ever to ensure we are maximizing our investments in basic research and minimizing the bureaucratic requirements that eat away at the money designed for funding scientists and science. Basic research serves as the foundation for many new discoveries and represents a critical investment for the future of the country and the innovations that drive our economy and protect our people.

Yes!

I have supported significant increases in basic research at the National Science Foundation.

Good.

I also called for a plan developed by our top scientists on how the funding should be utilized.

I thought the National Science Foundation already did this.

We must ensure that our research is addressing our national needs and taking advantage of new areas of opportunities and that the results of this research can enter the marketplace.

Again, the emphasis is on the practical (applied research). The point of basic research is to learn things that are fundamentally new, without necessarily having a concrete end in mind. Applied research is where you go in having a particular goal, and then work with what is known (or unknown) until you achieve the result that you want. Pure or basic knowledge is free and open to the world (as Bacon would have had it). Specific ways of using the known laws of nature to achieve particular results are patentable and therefore proprietary. Again, basic research is government’s best investment because a) non-profit foundations and the private sector aren’t doing so as much anymore and b) it provides fundamental knowledge to everybody without granting financial resources that privilege one particular group or individual.

We must also ensure that basic research money is allocated to the best science based on quality and peer review, not politics and earmarks. I am committed to reinvigorating America’s commitment to basic research, and will ensure my administration funds research activities accordingly. I have supported increased funding at DOE, NSF, and NIH for years and will continue to do so. I will continue my commitment to ensure that the funding is properly managed and that the nation's research needs are adequately addressed.

14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

Each one of us who has been to the doctor in recent years has benefited greatly by the scientific and technological developments that have come from our nation’s commitment to biomedical research. With every passing day our researchers are one day closer to finding potential cures to some of the most devastating diseases. Our engineers and technicians are developing new technologies and tests to discover health problems earlier and earlier, increasing the likelihood and effectiveness of intervention. When we understand the science of our illnesses because of the extensive research that we have conducted, we are in a better position to develop treatment technologies. With this additional knowledge, we are also able to do a better evaluation of the effectiveness of our treatment plans.

As in many other areas, science, research, and technology offer many opportunities to improve productivity and reduce cost. For instance, we are just beginning to realize the vast potential of telemedicine. It allows doctors to be able to reach more patients, especially those located in remote areas. In many cases, telemedicine is the only means by which some patients would ever be able receive treatment for their illnesses. Applications such as this leads to an improved health and quality of life for those affected patients. Ultimately, improved quality of life is the purpose of any technology.

And while technologies and the latest research can go a long way toward finding new treatments and reducing costs, government policies must increase the availability of these to the American people. The biggest concern with the American health care system is that it costs too much. Small businesses and families pay more and more every year to get what they often consider to be inadequate attention or poor care. And those who want to buy insurance are often unable to afford health insurance because of the high cost. By promoting research and development of new treatment models, promoting wellness, investing in technology and empowering Americans with better information on quality, we can make health care more affordable.

What about tort reform?

*

Okay, so I haven't engaged in nearly as much seal-clubbing as I've done on other documents. As an Eisenhower conservative, I have the following inputs/comments regarding McCain's approach to improving science and technology policy:

• It is too government-centric. Where government should act (in my view) is in basic, fundamental research and science.
• The problem with government investing in applied research is that it's throwing tax money after activities designed to create specific results, then it is trying to pick winners and losers in technological races. Government has shown itself unable to do this reliably or cost effectively.
• He accepts too many of the premises of the questions asked. While he's willing to use market incentives to create the same results (climate change, alternative energy, government regulation of personal energy consumption, etc.), he's still using capitalistic means to achieve leftist ends.

The bottom line, for me is that he's a big-government guy, with a slightly Republican slant (and people wonder why conservatives are so happy about Sarah Palin?). It's gonna be an interesting day when I actually have to break down and vote.