Movie Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

This is not going to be a typical review, in that I won't be jumping right into what the movie is about. It's soon enough after the film's release that some of those reading might not have read it. I'll get to the topic eventually, but I won't spoil much for the reader. What I'd like to write about right now is simply why I enjoy these films so much. As a Gen Xer, perhaps, I can do little else.

Steven Spielberg remains one of our greatest living directors by providing both enjoyable stories and by eliciting humane, believable performances from his actors. If George Lucas had had the sense to give Spielberg the directing job for, say, Episode III of Star Wars, I might've forgiven him for the other two.

Lucas is the big idea guy--concepts, effects, action sequences, explosions, etc. He is quite possibly one of the worst of his USC Film School peers when it comes to getting good performances from actors, though American Graffiti and the first Star Wars show some signs that once upon a time he understood human emotions.

Harrison Ford, even at 65, is still The Man. Beyond a doubt, he is THE movie star of the past generation. He is not known (in my mind) for his great acting range, but for bringing along his rugged good looks and strong sense of himself, like Humphrey Bogart or Gary Cooper. He is an action hero in regular guy's clothing. While not many of us could see ourselves being the musclebound Schwarzenegger or Stallone, there is something appealing about a Ford hero. He bleeds, he gets hurt, but he keeps going and manages a snarky remark or two along the way. There is something manly (not macho) and very human about Ford's hero that people relate and respond to. There are exceptions to Ford's action-hero career, like Blade Runner, Witness, and The Mosquito Coast (or, for sheer awfulness, Regarding Henry), but really when people think of Ford's career in 20-30 years, they'll be thinking of the epics he made with Spielberg and Lucas. And that's not such a bad thing, since they are some of the most successful and culturally influential films of the late 20th century.

John Williams is the not-so-silent fourth partner of the Indiana Jones films, and he has made Spielberg's and Lucas's epics shine even brighter than they might have otherwise. As composer/conductor of the soundtracks for all of Spielberg's work since Jaws, as well as the Star Wars movies, Williams' music is embedded in our society along with the films. And his themes are tied to Indiana Jones as indelibly as the hat, jacket, and bullwhip. I write this to say that Williams' work put me in a positive and (dare one say it?) heroic frame of mind.
In short, it's a pleasure to have all four of these men working together again. 

As must be obvious, Indiana Jones was one of my heroes growing up, and he still is.







And while I don't wear the costume as well as Mr. Ford does, I at least took the time to get it as right as I could (YOU try finding a real bullwhip these days!). Indiana Jones made me want to be a hero when I grew up. The first two films came out when I was just about the perfect age: 11 to 14. At the peak of adolescence, boys start changing into young men, and are looking for someone to look up to--a role model, example, hero--call them what you will. There are worse heroes one might have had at that age than Dr. Jones. I shudder to think of what lessons an 11-to-14-year-old might be learning now watching Lucas's young Anakin Skywalker.

After Raiders of the Lost Ark came out, I spent some time in the library tracking down the Ark of the Covenant's location, as well as the city of Tanis, and anything else I could dig up. It wasn't like I was going to book a trip to Egypt at that age. Mostly, I was checking to see how much of Raiders was real and how much was BS. But even at that age, I wanted to be the hero. I fashioned myself a rope "whip" at one point, and made sure I got The Hat. 

When Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was released, I was 14 and still going through my awkward/depressed/frightened adolescent phase. And brother, did I need a hero then! Perhaps that's why I enjoyed Temple of Doom more than my peers. I can crystallize my love of the film in the scene where Indy frees the slave children of Pankot palace. He's just rescued the damsel in distress with a little help from his sidekick. He stands at the entry to the mine in challenge, righteously angry, ready to free the slaves and set things right while dramatic, stirring music rises triumphantly behind him. You want to join him in the battle to follow. Jeez, that was great. Hell, it's still great! And like I said, I needed that sense of fearlessness when I was 14. Some guys get a surge of adrenaline from watching Rocky whup ass. For me, that adrenaline came from watching Indiana Jones in the Temple of Doom; that was perhaps my favorite moment in movies.

By the time Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade came out, I was 20. I was mostly out of my awkward, fearful stage, and Ford had gotten what was then considered a little old to be making action films. Narratively, Lucas decided to add Sean Connery as Indy's father and comic foil. Marcus and Sallah had become bumbling caricatures of their previous selves, and everything was a little too cute and comical, sort of like Return of the Jedi compared to The Empire Strikes Back. I finally pinned down why I didn't like Last Crusade as much as the first two films: everyone was too clean. Indy has a habit of coming out of these films covered in dust, cobwebs, cuts, and bruises. As usual, he kept his hat on through the whole thing, but it barely had a crease when it was all over. Still, the hero rode off into the sunset, all was right with the world, and life went on.

So imagine my surprise when Spielberg, et al., decided to bring Indy back. Ford is now 64, portraying 57-year-old Indiana Jones, part-time professor of archaeology and stalwart defender of truth, justice, and the American way. He looks about as well as one would expect him to look 27 years after the first film was made. Heck, I should be in such good shape at my age! But when you see the whip crack and Indy leap back into action, you believe it. One goes to an Indiana Jones film to be entertained, not to observe deep character studies. Still, one has to ask: can a cranky 64-year-old Harrison Ford still wow 'em like cranky ol' 37-year-old Ford did? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

There's a certain sillier-than-usual quotient in the central premise of this film (what movie people call "the MacGuffin"), but if you can buy a mild-mannered 20th-century professor going off to become a globe-trotting adventurer in search of the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, then I guess you can buy the latest magical plot device. No, I won't spoil it for you.

The tone of this film is different from the others, perhaps because Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford are all getting older. The film is a lot more domestic than the others, meaning both that it's dealing with more down-home issues and that much of the action takes place in the U.S. We still get "the map," though, and at least some globetrotting, with a plane in the background following the trail and a red line to mark progress. Crystal Skull is also a lot more "talky" than the other films. Jones even has a moment where his professorial habits come out in the field, something that never happened in the earlier installments. Like his creators, Indiana Jones has to face the fact that he's getting old.

It's a pleasure to see Karen Allen return as Marion Ravenwood. Allen's character can't help but admire Jones with a goofy school-girl-crush look that disturbs her son, Mutt, who's a refugee from The Wild One or The Blackboard Jungle. Okay, one spoiler here: Mutt appears as Indy's son, and it's funny to watch Indy's attitude toward the kid change once he learns this fact. This being an action film, we don't get a lot of time to see the father-son relationship to develop. In this, The Last Crusade was superior.

Still, in the end, I'd rank this film my third favorite in the series. One primary reason? We see Indy getting dusty again. Crystal Skull has violence, dust, dirt, and cobwebs galore. Indy comes through in the end, perhaps not as ambitiously as before, but as heroically as ever. I think Harrison Ford can hang up the hat and whip now. As Indy tells Mutt at one point, "You don't have to prove you're a tough guy all the time." Harrison Ford has more than proven it, time and again. He can march off into the sunset, proud of a job well done.

Book Review: Mercury

Recently, Dwayne Day wrote a piece in The Space Review that describes "solar sci-fi":

There are dozens of subgenres of sci-fi and one of them centers on near-future depictions of spaceflight, what one person has dubbed “solar sci-fi”. The basic tenets of this subgenre are that the stories are usually set within the next century, there are no space aliens, and the laws of physics apply. This entire subgenre is, for the most part, space geek pornography. It depicts pretty things that don’t exist in real life and it is ultimately bad for the soul. The stories rarely aspire to anything thought-provoking and are largely escapist fiction.

I recalled these words as I finished Ben Bova's Mercury during my sojourn in Boston. Now, to be fair, Mr. Bova does in fact throw in a few things that physics can't do yet, like develop radiation shields, space elevators, or equipment capable of surviving on the planet Mercury, and he has thrown in some alien life, but one must ask: are near-future stories dealing with near-term exploration in the solar system worthwhile? I would have to say yes. Sometimes it's easier to tell a story than rattle off the potential usefulness of various planetary bodies (inspiration, new resources, blah blah blah). Bova is continuing a tradition at least as old as Heinlein, drawing people into space-based adventures as a means of (hopefully) making the real thing happen someday.

What, then, does Bova do with the planet Mercury? Well, he places a variety of characters there (a Japanese businessman, a religious political officer, an ambitious scientist, and a cranky outpost manager). All of these characters have a mingled past that eventually gets explained in a few flashback chapters later in the book and then resolved in the "present" later. Query: are flashbacks or shifting time perspectives now mandatory in all science fiction? I'm trying to recall the last book I read that didn't include this literary device. Oh yeah: Oath of Fealty.

Bova takes the time to get his astronomy and environments right, and comes up with some clever technologies to make capture that futuristic feel: I particularly like the radiator fins on the back of the armored suits. At one point, the Japanese industrialist has a dialogue with a holographic Robert L. Forward, an eminent physicist who contributed more than his share of science fictional concepts and stories. I suppose I liked this bit because I met Forward at my first ISDC.

The story was more about melodrama than science fiction. I recognize the problem because I've been criticized of similar behavior. Meaning? The story is more about the characters' personal conflicts than solving particular science fictional problems. And if you strip away the technologies and weird environments, the story could be told on Earth, if you substitute a collapsed bridge for a collapsed space elevator or a more common Earth-based discovery for the discovery of alien life on Mercury. "Yeah, but those things ARE in the book, so it's science fiction, right?" Well, yes. I am trying to convey, however, my reading experience, not necessarily debate whether Mercury is or is not SF. The book was lacking for me in some way, and I can't put my finger on it.

This my first reading of one of Bova's "Grand Tour" books, so perhaps I'd have more appreciation for these characters, their histories, and their situations if I'd read more about them. I haven't read a great deal of SF lately. My free time has been consumed by philosophy, history, or space fact. SF was my entry into this space business, as Heinlein, Clarke, etc. intended. Now I'm in the biz, and trying to make things happen in the real world, and as a result, I don't necessarily like to waste my time on fiction when there are things to do here. I have Mars awaiting me on the bookshelf, too, so maybe I'll give the series a shot. However, Mercury in isolation didn't move me or provide any great insights to help me in this job of mine. I have a great respect for Bova, whom I've also met at a couple of cons (SF and NSS). He is both an author and an advocate and sees the great potential of space. However, not even Heinlein hit a home run every time at bat. This one is a base hit, maybe a double, but it'll be awhile before I pick up another.

Can Government Fix the Energy Crisis?

Well, maybe. One can, at least, make attempts to push them in the right direction. If the energy/petroleum problem is a supply and demand issue (and it is), the best things we can do are to reduce the country's demand (by using non-petroleum-based energy) and increase the supply (by drilling for more petroleum). I got irritated enough with our government this week that I finally sent emails to my two Senators (Sessions and Shelby) and Congressman (Cramer). It probably won't make a fig's difference, but I can try. See below.

Senator Sessions:

I am greatly disturbed by the government's unwillingness to do the right things to solve the current high price of energy. I consider the "right things" to include:

--Open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and the rest of the U.S. continental shelf to oil drilling.
--Allow more fuel refineries to be built.
--Reduce restrictions on building nuclear plants.
--Mandate that all U.S.-built vehicles be capable of running on gasoline, ethanol, alcohol, or any combination thereof (flexible fuel vehicles).
--Increase funding for research & development on fuel cells, space-based solar power, and helium-3 fusion.
--Reduce or suspend the federal taxes on gasoline.

All of these acts combined would increase the potential supply of oil, keep energy spending at home, reduce uncertainty and volatility in the petroleum markets, and go a long way toward increasing the nation's energy independence.

I urge you and your fellow Senators to work with the House to make these things happen for the good of the nation.

Thank you.

Bart D. Leahy
Huntsville, AL

In addition to their utter inability to set a rational energy policy, I think our rulers (they are no longer our public servants) have lost all sense of national self-preservation. They cannot make reasonable decisions about terrorism, border security, taxes, government spending, or space exploration. And it doesn't matter who becomes president in 2008; we're in for four years of a Jimmy Carter presidency. This is not a good thing. Consider the last Carter administration:

• Double-digit inflation
• Double-digit unemployment
• Baseline federal budgeting (i.e. automatic double-digit increases in federal spending to keep up with the cost of living)
• Loss of military proficiency/potency
• Loss of trust among our allies
• Loss of fear among our enemies
• Expansion in the power of our enemies
• Hostage crises
• National "malaise"
• Misery Index
• Energy supply constriction
• Et cetera

One might argue, "Oh, that was just a symptom of the times." Okay, BUT...if leadership matters, and policy choices matter, and all three presidential candidates in 2008 have the same policies as Jimmy Carter did in 1980, why should we expect anything better from the next four years?

I amused a fellow space advocate yesterday when I told him I was taking a break from all my space stuff to read some science fiction. I was only partly kidding. Book reading does relax me, and yes, I was reading science fiction, but it was not about space. Or rather, it was not set in space or primarily concerned with space. However, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, being two of the giants in the SF field, would be remiss if space didn't show up somewhere.

So if Oath of Fealty isn't about space, what IS it about? Set in the near future (the book was written in 1980), Niven and Pournelle describe the dramatic possibilities of a structure called an arcology. What, exactly, is an arcology? Put simply, it is an entire city enclosed within one building. The concept was invented by Paolo Soleri, an architect and protege of Frank Lloyd Wright. In the story, a large conglomerate takes advantage of an urban riot in Los Angeles, which leaves a large stretch of land burned out and dilapidated, to build Todos Santos ("All Saints" en español).

The most important aspect of Todos Santos to its designer, Tony Rand, is that it was designed to be independent of the city around it. In essence, Rand thinks of Todos Santos as a starship. In addition to this drive for self-sufficiency, the "Saints" have established a semi-feudal culture, with oaths of fealty (loyalty) given to the arcology's adminstrator and its society in return for round-the-clock surveillance and protection from the world outside Todos Santos. Alas, the "outside world" the authors describe is not far different from our own, with the things to be protected from including bureaucratic regulations, crime, and taxes. The organization running TS pays the citizens' taxes, helps them get started in business, and provides a safe, high-technology society in which to raise families.

There are, of course, people who might reject such a structure or lifestyle. These individuals are represented by the FROMATEs ("Friends of Man and the Earth"), who would be called eco-terrorists today. The Fromates occasionally perform raids on TS, everything from disturbing the peace to pouring LSD into the water to actually setting off bombs. The story centers on this conflict and the tensions between TS and the poorer city of Los Angeles around it.

Normally, in a Niven-Pournelle collaboration, we get a healthy dose of lecturing (courtesy of Dr. Pournelle, whose brain I envy). However, while the authors are swift to defend the arcology on quality of life and cultural grounds, they say surprisingly little about the ecological impacts or benefits of TS. And that's surprising, since eco-terrorists are primarily motivated by ecological issues.

Arcosanti is Paolo Soleri's prototype arcology, which was begun in the Arizona desert and has never been completed, but began as an ecological project. For example, this quotation from the Arcosanti website would have sufficed:

An arcology would need about two percent as much land as a typical city of similar population. Today’s typical city devotes more than sixty percent of its land to roads and automobile services. Arcology eliminates the automobile from within the city. The multi-use nature of arcology design would put living, working and public spaces within easy reach of each other and walking would be the main form of transportation within the city.

That sort of argument might have provided a better technical grounding for the advantages of Todos Santos.

On a storytelling level, Oath of Fealty is brisker, less ambitious, and has fewer characters to keep track of than Lucifer's Hammer. It's a little more fun as well. For instance, to discourage or mock "jumpers" who climb to the roof of TS to jump off, Tony Rand added a high-dive board. One guy backs away from the board, and Rand says, "Call it evolution in action," a catchphrase that repeats from there on. There is a bit of a social Darwinist attitude to the "Saints," which explains its popularity; the Saints are unashamedly upscale people, sort of like the folks that populate gated communities today. They pay for their security/comfort, and they expect it to be delivered. They don't have much love or patience for regular Angelinos, and the feeling is mutual.

Oath of Fealty is interesting to me because the whole concept of an arcology is just cool. Could it be done today? Undoubtedly. Will it be done? Consider this: if you added several levels of apartments to the top of the Mall of America, you'd have a close approximation of Todos Santos. The "Town Center" developments sprouting up around the country are also similar: small, contained shopping areas with upscale housing nearby. If you've got all the necessities of life (via stores) nearby, you need not ever leave your neighborhood.

There's also the question of industrial feudalism: are we approaching such a state, with aristocrats in "high castles" and the lower classes outside the walls looking in? I'd say we are. It might not be the ideal situation, but that depends on what your ideal is. Do you like stability? Medieval feudalism was stable for 800 years (~500-1300 A.D.). Laissez-faire capitalism lasted about a century in the U.S. and UK (1776-1893). After that, it mutated into welfare-state capitalism. Industrial feudalism as Niven/Pournelle describe it would allow for some freedom of movement and advancement through capitalist endeavors, but would be kept in check by constant surveillance. A lot of the current generation is used to cameras everywhere--perhaps that wouldn't be such a great stretch. In any case, Oath of Fealty offers the reader an easy-to-read story and an insight into another way of life. That's why SF fans read what they read.

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood

Today was one of those fantastic days that make me wonder why the heck anyone would want to leave Earth: sunny, 70 degrees, light breeze, unbelievably blue sky, trees and grass so green they were practically shouting. So you've gotta ask yourself a simple question: what in HECK would make you want to give up all this to go live in a tin can on some godforsaken rock in the middle of nowhere? We might have to leave someday--asteroids, volcanoes, and ice ages being what they are--but if things are going well, why screw around with it?

There is an element of escapism in the whole space exploration/settlement thing, of course. A lot of people watch SF for the vicarious thrill of seeing people live on other worlds; but the odds are pretty good that they wouldn't want to actually live there. That explains the audience gap between space advocacy conferences and SF conventions. The space advocates really want to go; the SF fans are content to let their minds wander. And then there are people like me, who are in both camps.

I don't have any other deep thoughts this evening. My mind must be wandering. Ciao.

Back from Boston

This is a short post because I'm wiped out. Ten hours to get back home. Why? Well, normally I'm willing to accept blame when I do things that cause plans to go awry. However, today's misadventures I have to lay at the collective feet of USAirways. Let's start with my first flight of the morning, which was going to be Boston-Charlotte. Ehhhhhh! Wrong! UScare changed my flight to Boston-Washington because my BOS-CLT segment was delayed. Would've been nice if the skycap had told me that.

Then I get to DCA (Washington-National, which some of us call Reagan National to irritate the locals), where I've got a two-hour layover. No problem. I check the monitors for my gate, go get lunch at Friday's, then grab a seat at the gate listed on the monitors (Gate 25). It gets to be around 3:57, and there's no plane at the gate. WTF, over? So I go check the monitors again: the DCA-HSV flight moved to Gate 36. Anyone care to guess where that gate was? If you guessed the concourse I was just in, you'd be correct. And unlike some airports that allow you to go through security only ONCE, DCA makes you do it for every concourse. So I missed my plane.

The gate agent was helping another Huntsville passenger with the same problem. The agent didn't realize her error, as she said, "I made an announcement here before the plane left." Right. You made an announcement at the NEW gate. Where was the fa-king announcement at the previous gate announcing the departure change? Any compensation forthcoming? Of course not. However, the agent at least booked me on the next flight, which left at 7 p.m. Another three hours in DC. Yippee skippee. It is then that I am informed that UScare has a shuttle bus to take passengers from concourse to concourse to avoid having to go through security twice. Wouldn't THAT have been a useful piece of information to know at 3:57 p.m.?! In a word, GAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

***

That said, I actually had a pretty good time in Boston. Managed to get in some sightseeing, got some business discussed for the Mars Foundation; had an enjoyable dinner/chat with my sister's buddy Lynn; bought a couple souvenirs; took NO pictures (because I'm lazy and didn't feel like lugging around the camera or having it stolen); and picked up some useful information about Ares at the JANNAF conference I was actually there to attend. I always get suckered in by those Northern cities in the spring and summer. Occasionally I need to visit in winter to remind myself of why I live in the South.

I had 178 emails awaiting me when I got home, and no doubt I have more awaiting me when I get to the office tomorrow. However, since the company is so adamant about sticking to my 40 hours, tomorrow will be a short day. Huzzah!

More ranting later, I'm sure.

Book Review: If Life is a Bowl of Cherries, What Am I Doing in the Pits?

I managed to be a good boy this year and get flowers to Mom and Stepmom on time (it's a frickin' miracle!). And since I was thinking about moms and parenting in general this week, I thought I'd refresh myself with some amusement from my childhood: in my case, that would be Erma Bombeck, a housewife who turned motherhood into a successful newspaper column and book writing career.

Erma seemed to fit our household (Mom, sis, me) very well. She was a Silent Generation white lady from the Midwestern suburbs with a sly sense of humor and excellent writing skills. At one point I wanted to write an article entitled "Aunt Erma's Mutant Offspring," because reading Erma was sort of like living with my Mom, and I'd become a very suburban type of writer myself, in outlook if not subject matter. My stepmom (Marilyn) is of similar bent and sense of humor. If fathers provide sons with their "big picture" views of the world--and I became a Reagan conservative even though Dad was 1,000 miles away--moms seem to provide a sense of balance, and an appreciation of the little things that bring joy, pain, and laughter.

If Life is a Bowl of Cherries, What Am I Doing in the Pits? came out in 1978, around the time I picked up my voracious reading habit. I'm not sure, but I think Mom read some of it to Colleen and me as part of our "reading time." This is the sort of shared family time of which Erma would have heartily approved. And so, rather than go into a great deal more analysis, I'll just throw in some of my favorite "bits" from this book, which is derived from her columns written in the 1970s. Just trust me, the whole thing is worth reading, if only to get an insight into parenting as done by grown-ups born 1930-46.

***

[T]here are some ground rules that must prevail while a mother is employed outside the home. First, when to bug and when not to bug. In other words, when do you call Mom on the phone at work?

Emergencies do arise. There's no doubt about that, but some guidelines must be established at the top of the page.

Before a child calls his mother at work he must ask himself: (1) Will Mom drop dead when she hears this? (2) Can she find a plumber after five? (3) Will she carry out her threat to move to another city and change her name?

If the answers are "Yes, No, Yes," the child might try putting the incident in a little perspective.

***

Other situations to be definite about:

When a group of children decide to wash the cat and put in the dryer and want to know what setting to use...CALL.

When he and his brother are hitting and slapping over the last soft drink and he wants a high level decision on who gets it. DON'T CALL.

When a couple of men in a pickkup truck tell him his Mom is having the TV slipcovered, the silverware stored, her jewelry cleaned and his ten-speed bicycle oiled, CALL...AND FAST.

***

This is quite possibly my favorite, for reasons which will become swiftly obvious:

Primer for Imaginative Children

This is a house.

Vehicles are not permitted in the house.

Occupancy of this house by more than two hundred people is dangerous and unlawful. Violators will be prosecuted.

There is a dog in the house. His name is Spot. Spot likes to run and play and chase sticks. He also likes to relieve himself with some regularity. Watch Spot for telltale signs of urgency, such as jumping higher than the ceiling, gnawing on the doorknob, or tunneling under the
door.

It is fun to eat. See the milk? See the butter? See the lunch meat? They cannot run. They cannot walk. They have no legs. They must be picked up and returned to the refrigerator or they will turn green. Green is not a happy color.

Hear the phone ring? That means someone wants to talk to you. Ring. Ring. Ring. When the phone rings, pick it up speak directly into it. Say "Hello." Say "Goodbye." Say anything.

A bedroom is a special place. Find your bed each day. Try. Sometimes, you cannot see your bed because it is covered with clutter. A cluttered room is a messy room. Fish die in a messy room. Mothers cannot breathe in a messy room. A messy room is unfit for humans. Many people in this house are human.

A bathroom is your friend. It is there when you need it. Lids do not like to be standing all the time. They get tired. Towels do not like to be on the floor. They cannot see anything. Ugh. Soap does not like to lie in a drain and melt. Boo.

See Mommy come home. See Daddy come home. They are walking on their knees. Be kind to Mommy and Daddy. "Look, look, Mommy, Bruce is bloody. I'm telling, Debbie. I didn't do it, Daddy."

Do you want to make Mommy crazy?

Do you want to make Daddy rupture a neck vein?

Then shape up, up, up.

***

I was going to include more, but I just wanted to give you a taste of "Aunt Erma," who raised more than a few Generation X kids, if only by osmosis, and her passing in 1996 was a loss to many of us. Anyhow, be nice to your mother(s), guardians, mentors, and other female authority figures in your life. Gosh knows they've done the same for you.

Arguing for the Vision for Space Exploration

Here's George's testimony to the Senate: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=27921. It's the print version, which is longer than the five-minute blurb he was allowed, but well worth reading. George answers the big questions space advocates should answer if they're going to face off with the public: what do we want to do with our space program? What do we hope to accomplish?

The statements given by Gene Kranz, Joan Johnson-Freese, etc. are also worth reading.

Truthiness

Apparently the joys of Google bombing have rendered Steven Colbert the "greatest living American." This brought to mind one of his favorite neologisms:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

1. truthiness (noun)
1. "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006)

Colbert applied this to George W. Bush, but this could just as easily refer to the attitudes of his political opponents, like Dan Rather, who believed that his story about Bush's National Guard service was true, even if the evidence he relied on was made up.

In the political silly season, it might also equate to the impassioned beliefs of people who don't vote as I do. Okay, really quick: imagine that a Republican senator with two years of experience in that body and a history of voting the straight Republican/conservative line wanted to run for president. What would the media be saying about him? Or imagine that the wife of a former Republican president, with no experience in elected office but eight years as First Lady, declared herself "ready on day one" to be president. The jokes in the news rooms would be told for decades. However, change the (R) after the names of these two hypotheticals to a (D), and we have unquestioned belief, seriousness, and praise. Unbefrickingly believeable.

NSS Wants to Hear from You

I received the following message from George Whitesides yesterday:

Society requests input from members for NSS testimony before Congress

Next Wednesday, May 7, NSS Executive Director George Whitesides [hyperlink mine]will testify before the United States Senate on NASA and the nation's space policies. We would like to solicit your input as a member of the National Space Society for this important testimony. The testimony will be used by Congress as it considers reauthorization of NASA, which is the periodic direction from Congress to NASA on the priorities and programs of the agency. The hearing will be presided over by Florida's senior Senator, Bill Nelson. We would appreciate your comments on the future of the U.S. space program, its importance to the country, and the potential gap in human spaceflight capability, following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. Due to the immediate timeline, we would request that you submit your comments no later than Monday, May 5 [emphasis mine]. You can email your comments directly to George Whitesides at: george@nss.org

Please include the following subject line with your email: "NSS Senate Testimony". All submissions will be read carefully and used as foundational materials for the NSS testimony. We will try to post the comments we receive on the NSS website. Please note in your response if you would prefer to keep your submission private. Thank you
for your visionary support of space, and thank you for your membership in NSS.

Ad Astra!

This is a good opportunity, if you're an NSS member, to get your thoughts out there. Admittedly, I've got a self-interested motive, because I support Constellation in my day job, but more importantly I just believe it's a good thing for the country.

Here's what I sent to George:

• Value of Space Exploration: I sing this song 20 different ways every day. For my own part, I just believe in reaching for greatness, achievement. That must come from effort, from hard work; it means we must have confidence in ourselves, our fellow citizens, and our collective ability to use human intelligence to solve human and technological problems. Space exploration is simply the ultimate expression of that reaching for greatness.
• Strategic Considerations: It has become clear, through the actions of Russia, China, India, and other nations, that space was not simply a one-time "space race" of the Cold War. These nations are pushing the envelope of their individual and collective abilities in space. They see space exploration--not just satellites--as a strategic, critical capability. We would be foolish not to do likewise.
• Implications of, and Solutions to, the Gap: The National Space Society recently sent letters to the ranking members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, asking them to increase funding for crew launches to the International Space Station under "Option D" of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program. The COTS program both encourages this nation's domestic spaceflight capability and reduces our dependency on other nations. If we don't reduce the gap, we run the risk of being held over a barrel if we want to send up our astronauts, or worse, being prevented from sending them at all.
• NASA's Needs for Continuing the VSE: NASA needs a simple but long-term commitment from the nation's elected officials in the form of re-authorization. In reality, it also needs 1 percent of the federal budget. With that 1 percent, we can fund Constellation, and keep our science, aeronautics, and Earth science programs robust.

Let's keep 'em flying. Heck, let's GET 'em flying! Remember: Ares I-X launches in 2009!