Pages

Friday, January 30, 2009

Miscellaneous Space and Science Stuff

The kids at OpenNASA.com have a white paper out on "participatory exploration." It's probably worth a read. Participatory exploration basically means incorporating user-driven web applications that allow citizens to affect the direction of future space missions.

The University of Colorado at Boulder has begun a "Center for Space Entrepreneurship." This is a necessary incubator of the future space economy. Some of this Center reminds me of my "Starfleet Academy" school proposal. The school system in Colorado has some interesting things going on. I've met some folks from the Colorado School of Mines who also have a great interest in space exploration, particularly their Center for Space Resources.

If you're looking for the latest images of the Ares I-X flight test, check out this site: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=166

Jerry Pournelle on the greatest threat to America. Short version: we're providing an inadequate education to the top 25% of our students, we're not accepting the fact that half of the population is below average, and we're not educating the rest according to their abilities, but according to the democratic notion that "Everyone deserves a world-class prep school education" (Bill Gates).

And finally, a fun commercial for getting kids interested in engineering:



Thursday, January 29, 2009

Various Items and Comments Regarding the Economy

President Obama's $800+ billion-dollar "stimulus" bill is a problem for people who believe in classical economics. It is mostly about federal spending on various sorts of pet projects, political favors, bailouts of failed banks and businesses, and perhaps creating a nationalized Bank of the United States. The tax base cannot support it. Since the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped from 11,000 to around 8,000, we've lost at least a trillion dollars in value from our economy. Businesses have closed their doors, unemployment has gone up, interest rates are at essentially zero yet no bank will issue new loans. This is a crisis of confidence, and a new government expenditure of a trillion dollars, unsupported by the tax base or the monetary system, can only mean one thing down the road: hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is simple to understand--too much money is created, prices continue to increase, leading the government to print more money to help people artificially keep up with rising prices, causing the value of the currency to drop.

My "favorite" image of hyperinflation occurred in Weimar Germany, the republic formed after Kaiser Wilhelm II's regime collapsed in 1918. In the economic hardship and uncertainty that followed from crushing war debts, Germany's currency was inflated to pay the debt. Citizens of Germany faced mounting inflation, to the point where instead of US$1 equalling 60 Marks, US$1 equalled 8,000 marks. People were going to the store with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The value of the Mark collapsed because there was nothing of value backing it--at the time, gold was the standard for backing national currencies.

Since the U.S. went off the Gold Standard in 1973, the dollar has had a value accepted based on currency speculation and the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. That is, people in this country and around the world believe the dollar has value because the U.S. Government says it does and is willing and able to back up that value with something of tangible worth. It is "fiat money," from the Latin term "fiat" meaning "let there be" (ex. "fiat lux" - let there be light). So: the U.S. Government says, "Let there be money," and lo, it was so. But that sort of money only lasts so long as people believe in the ability of the U.S. Government or its people to create enough value in this country to consider the dollar still believable. When the government says, "We're going to spend a trillion dollars to fix the economy!" some folks might say, "Great!" Others, a little more cautious, would ask, "Where's the money going to come from?" The sources, given the current state of things, are limited:

  1. Print more money (inflation)
  2. Increase taxes
  3. Borrow money from someone else who has it
  4. Create new wealth

Curious about what happens with inflation? See that article on Weimar Germany or these items on the inflation occurring right now under dictator Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/3264644/Zimbabwe-shops-stop-accepting-local-currency.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/4224947/New-Zimbabwe-50bn-note-buys-three-newspapers.html

Okay, so what about raising taxes? You might recall that businesses all over the country are facing profit losses because the economy is slowing. Unemployment is rising because businesses are cutting costs (employment) in order to stay afloat. They are unable to expand into new ventures because fewer consumers and investors have money to buy into them and because banks are unwilling to loan money. So there's less money to go around to support economic growth, and some folks want to raise taxes on businesses. That will slow down how well money flows through the economy (liquidity), as the government gets more and businesses capable of building long-term employment shrink further.

We could, have, and probably will, borrow more from other countries who can afford to buy U.S. Treasury Bills: Europe, Japan, China, and (surprise, surprise), the oil sheikdoms of the Middle East. The first problem is that an economic slowdown here cuts down economic activity elsewhere, reducing the amount of money available overseas to buy our debt. Second, T-Bills are, like the dollar, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, with the difference that they actually have a due date for a return on investment. If other countries no longer believe that the U.S. will ever repay the debt, they might stop buying our T-Bills or declare us to be in default, which amounts to the same thing. Back when Japan was still our biggest economic competitor (from the mid '80s to the early '90s), there was some loose talk about Japan accepting the state of Hawaii or California as "payment" for our debts. Could that idea arise again? Who would buy that?

The best ways government itself can increase tax revenues, create jobs, and stimulate businesses are to lower taxes, reduce intrusive regulations, create and maintain infrastructure, and keep government out of competition with the private sector. The best ways private industry can create growth are to find new sources of wealth, develop new technologies, and create new businesses.

The best place for this nation to do those things is in space. As of yet, I've not heard about any new money going to NASA or any tax breaks going to businesses seeking to start businesses or prospect for resources there. But, of course, I'm a conservative and a kook, so what do I know?

This whole thing is just insane because the government is most likely to pick options 1, 2, and 3, which will stifle option 4, thereby slowing the recovery. Amity Shlaes' The Forgotten Man has never been more timely.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Season Continues

Another commercial...and a reminder that I need to work on my German.



Tuesday, January 27, 2009

We Choose to Go to the Moon...

I had a rough day at the office today. I needed this.



'Tis the Season...

Sometime in my early 30s, I realized I had become part of a target demographic. I think it was the point at which I realized I was laughing my @$$ off at every single commercial during the Super Bowl. So, in honor of the season, I'm reposting one of "the greats," Terry Tate, Office Linebacker.



Sunday, January 25, 2009

Book Review: The Forgotten Man: A New History of The Great Depression



Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man, is a classically trained (capitalist as opposed to Marxist) economist, and so has great insight into the policies employed to address the economic crisis following the stock market crash of 1929. This insight, plus the lively detail she puts into her history of the 1920s to the early 1940s, makes this book required reading for students of history, government, and economics. It also needs to be read by the Obama administration as it struggles to cope with the current recession.
Shlaes begins her narrative by talking about a desperate time--one where businesses were failing and people were committing suicide in the face of desperate economic straits--that time was not 1930, but 1937, after the New Deal had already been in place for five years. During this introduction, the author states her thesis regarding the extended length of the Depression. Rather than focusing on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or the Dust Bowl or Hoover's attempt to force wage increases or tax increases during a period of economic hardship, Shlaes emphasizes that "the intervention, the lack of faith in the marketplace," which in previous downturns had always recovered through minimal government interference, was hindered by intensive government manipulation of market mechanisms.
Going back to the 1920s, Shlaes then contrasts Hoover (who was Commerce Secretary) with his boss of the time, Calvin Coolidge. While Coolidge was a hands-off administrator and a believer in capitalism, Hoover, an engineer, believed that the economy could do even better when tinkered with or directed by the government. In times of crisis, Hoover further believed that government had the right and duty to set things right again.
Elected in 1928, in part due to his ability to marshal federal resources to help the Midwest recover from a flood of the Mississippi, Hoover set the tone that FDR was to take to greater extremes when he took office in 1932. In hopes of protecting American jobs, Hoover signed off on the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a tax on imported goods that caused other nations to raise their own import duties in retaliation. Next, to curb inflation (the primary concern of most 20th century economists), Hoover pushed the Federal Reserve to tighten up the money supply by raising interest rates. This "tight money" policy created a state of deflation, making money hard for businesses and individuals to obtain. Some cities even turned to creating non-dollar-based scrip or bartering to keep their local economies moving. Hoover also pushed for public works programs to increase employment, through such programs as the Boulder Dam, more commonly known today as Hoover Dam. All of these actions came together to ensure that Hoover remained a one-term president, and usually one of those that Democrats today hang around the necks of Republicans as a symbol of failure. However, Roosevelt would make his own interventions, and those, too, would interfere with recovery.
When FDR took office in 1933, an incredible 25 percent of the American workforce was unemployed (compare this, say, to the 10.3 percent unemployed during the early years of the Reagan administration or the paltry 7.2 percent unemployment we're experiencing today). FDR was a new political animal, an old-money aristocrat who dared to war on his fellow aristocrats, a liberal who emphasized group rights at a time when classical liberalism still emphasized individual rights. FDR's rhetoric also changed the context of previous economic theory. Consider these two conceptions of "the forgotten man," from which the book takes it title:
...as opposed to its original context...
"These unhappy times call for the building of plans that rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indispensible units of economic power, for plans like those of 1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid."
--Governor Franklin Roosevelt of New York, 1932

"As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X, or in the better case, what A, B, and C shall do for X...What I want to do is look up C. I want to show you what manner of man he is. I call him the Forgotten Man. Perhaps the appellation is not strictly correct. He is the man who never is thought of...He works, he votes, generally, he prays--but he always pays.
--William Graham Sumner, 1893
Again, Shlaes wants the reader to understand the changes FDR made to the traditional relationship between government and business. Prior to the 1930s, Washington was a quiet city, with a budget much smaller than many or most businesses nationwide. Its power was limited, and the public expectations of the federal government likewise remained limited. FDR would change all that, and more.
Roosevelt was one of the first mainstream American politicians to engage in "class warfare," a method usually practiced by socialists, wherein labor was set against "capital" (management), and goverment was expected to make capital pay for its misdeeds toward labor. In providing direct aid to poor blacks, FDR also shifted that voting bloc, which from the time of the Civil War had been reliably Republican, to the Democratic Party.
FDR pushed for higher taxes on big business, government management of electrical power, and government regulations of everything from consumer choice to labor wages. He approached market capitalism with confident skepticism and moral disdain. Shlaes also highlights his willingness to tinker with the economy, sometimes because he didn't know what would work, and sometimes just to irritate political rivals. Inverting traditional American assumptions of the time, FDR did what he could to restrict the power of big business under the assumption that "bigness" or success were obvious signs of corruption or unfair dealings. When big businesses were profitable, FDR established higher corporate tax rates to punish "excess profits." When corporations refrained from investing--out of fear of having their businesses nationalized or made unprofitable through government intervention--he created an "undistributed profits" tax to ensure that the federal government got its share regardless.
The problem with all of these interventions, regardless of the rhetoric used to justify them, was that they scared private enterprise from performing its usual function, which was to invest in new businesses, develop new products and services, and thereby create jobs. The government's tinkering exascerbated the very uncertainty they were supposed to overcome. According to Shlaes, the New Deal created many disincentives to typical economic activity and many perverse incentives to prevent the very activity they were supposed to help create.
One item in this book that was eye-opening to me was that government spending on World War II was only half of the equation in getting America's economy out of the Depression. Roosevelt also ceased his war on big business, allowing the economy to grow sufficiently to build the "Arsenal of Democracy." While Shlaes doesn't say so specifically, this seems to be pretty conclusive proof that Roosevelt was well aware his interventionist prescriptions were harming the economy, and that he stopped them only as a tool of national survival. Unfortunately, it might take a similar crisis to keep the current government in Washington from interfering in the market further.
There are other smaller stories within the greater narrative of The Forgotten Man that deserve attention, like the community- and individual-level self-help groups formed by characters like "Father Divine," a black preacher in New York, and Bill Wilson, the famous "Bill W" who created Alcoholics Anonymous. Shlaes also gives the reader insight into the behaviors of the political and big business magnates of the time, whose names are still familiar to us today: J. P. Morgan, Henry Morgenthau, Felix Frankfurter, Harold Ickes, Andrew Mellon, and Alexander Forbes. All of these stories flow as unique side trips along the great current of history that was the Great Depression, and they help a new generation understand what can go right and wrong when government attempts to help a nation out of economic troubles.

More Packing Items

I have a general idea of what clothing I'll be bringing to Europe (guideline #1: pack light). RickSteves.com has a pretty thorough packing list. It's the little stuff that keeps multiplying. Here's where the "small stuff" list stands right now:

  • First aid kit
    --Aspirin
    --Cold medicine
    --Immodium
    --Laxative (for those fine "binding" moments)
    --Allergy medicine
    --Neosporin
    --Band-Aids
    --Vitamins
  • Photocopies of ID, passport, credit cards, emergency contact #s, etc.
  • Prescriptions (ain't it just a treat getting old?)
  • Day pack/small backpack (recommended by Karen in FL--thanks!)
  • Ziploc bags (for, among other things, the prescriptions
  • Soap/container
  • Deep Woods Off!
  • Sunblock/aloe
  • Small towel

A towel is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have... any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the Galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through and still know where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with.
--The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

  • Clothesline
  • Shout/stain remover
  • Lock for backpack
  • Slippers/moccasins
  • Small flashlight
  • Water bottle
  • AA batteries
  • Power adapter
  • Charging widget for iPod
  • Compact umbrella
  • Cola can w/bits of metal junk (good anti-theft device)
  • Clothes freshener
  • Travel alarm
  • Travel-size shampoo, toothpaste, etc.
  • TP (per my sister--thanks!), though obviously a full shrink-wrapped four-pack is not an option.

And no doubt other weird stuff will crop up as I get closer to travel time. Yeep! What am I missing?

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Educational Resources and Engineering Education Goals

I've encountered some interesting things over the course of the last week or so. Rather than comment extensively, I'll just include the links below.

As a follow-up to my recent ScienceCheerleader blog, I thought this MIT presentation regarding engineering education goals was worth reading: http://raphael.mit.edu/MAO2006_deWeckWillcox.pdf

Also, if you would like to "get smart" on science, math, history, engineering, music, or darn near anything else and you don't have the money or time to go back to college, I recommend the following links:

Engineering handbooks from the Department of Energy: http://www.hss.energy.gov/NuclearSafety/ns/techstds/standard/standard.html

MIT Open Courseware: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm. This one is really cool, because it includes lectures, course notes, and even exams!

The MIT site is akin to another favorite of mine, The Teaching Company: http://www.teach12.com/teach12.aspx

TTC offers courses in everything from music appreciation to history to science and math. No college credit, obviously, but college-level materials and lectures via "class on tape/CD/DVD."

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Educating the Next Generation

Okay, Darlene the Science Cheerleader has now published both parts of my analysis of U.S. science and math test scores among 4th and 8th graders.

Part One deals with the actual test scores and some of the high-level political issues surrounding what's to be done about them.

Part Two deals with what we should be teaching students and how.

My thanks to Darlene for asking me to write on her site and for her tolerance of my rather lengthy articles. I invite further comment here or on Darlene's blog. I'll do my level best to answer comments or concerns, as need be.

Analyzing the Obama Inaugural Address

As with previous speeches this political season, I decided to read, not watch, Barack Obama's Inaugural Address. The usual Bartish play-by-play dissection follows. Believe it or not, this Republican found things to like in the speech. I almost titled this posting "Barack Obama: Crypto-Neocon?" I'm typing my comments in bold for ease of reading, though it won't be too hard to figure out where Obama's speaking and where I'm writing.

My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Does this mean there won't be a war crimes trial, as Nancy Pelosi wants?

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

Good.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.

Wow. This might come as a surprise to some of the liberals I interact with online, especially those who are convinced that everything would be fine with our dealings with al-Qaeda if we just treated them like common criminals and stopped making war on them. This is also some pretty harsh language from a guy who said he wouldn't hesitate to negotiate with any of our adversaries.

Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

Attaboy, Mr. President. Way to cheer us up and inspire us.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

This is a refrain from the campaign: hope and change. We don't gather because of your campaign, sir. We gather to watch the President get sworn into office.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

If he's talking about the political campaign or his opponents, then this line is somewhat disingenuous, as he is simultaneously taking a slap at his political opponents while trying to seem above politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Quoting scripture and using "God-given." Good.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

This is a truly remarkable statement, as he is praising both American exceptionalism and individual achievement, two things liberals are often at great pains to downplay.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Honoring immigrants, laborers, and the military. Good.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

More on American exceptionalism. Like we didn't know this already? Oh, wait. We were supposed to be feeling lost and depressed over the economy, so this section was designed to uplift the audience.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Who is this "We?" The government? Private industry? Both? The American people?

I like the "restore science to its rightful place" line, but I must wonder what shape that will take.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

Again, I wonder who or what he's talking about here--the ambitions (aspirations) of individual Americans, or the ambitions of our government?

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

Translation: "Conservatism is passé, New Deal big government is back, and there's nothing you can do about it."

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Programs will end? Oh, really? With billions of dollars spent so far, and trillions more to be spent? I'll believe it when I see it.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

True, with a caveat. The last part--that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous--is both true and untrue. If the laws are established to explicitly help one particular class, then bad things can happen. However, if the laws are established to enable all citizens to prosper if they have the willingness and ability, but some people don't have that willingness or ability, that is not the fault of the prosperous, and it is not the job of government to "fix" that. That's the fundamental difference between "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "liberty, equality, and fraternity."

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

Again, I'd say this is mostly true. However, the liberal politician's definition of "extending opportunity" is different from the conservative's definition. I suppose if I understood that difference, I'd be a liberal.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

This is an evocation of John F. Kennedy:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

Wow. This section is unbelievable. Aside from the bit about global warming, this is almost straight out of the Bush Doctrine. "We will not apologize for our way of life." Europeans would call that "unilateralism." "Nor will we waiver in its defense" sounds like a willingness to use military force. The rest of it sounds like Bush's "we will not falter, we will not fail" address or his September 20, 2001 articulation of the Bush Doctrine. Translation: Obama will continue the War on Terror.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

Good.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Double wow. Translation: We will encourage freedom in the Islamic world. That is one of the cornerstones of neoconservatism. The Bush Doctrine is not going away, folks. It's just going to get a new label and a fresh coat of paint, and a better PR guy.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

I like this, though we do already have the Peace Corps and Americorps. What else does he have in mind? More foreign aid? Swell. How does he plan to ensure that host nations use the aid to help, not harm their people?

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves.

Again, nothing wrong with honoring our fallen heroes. But note, again, the emphasis on sacrifice.

And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

"This moment...that will define a generation." He's talking about his own inauguration here--just his mere presence on the podium. Yes, he's the first black man to be President. Yes, that's historic. But getting there is, comparatively speaking, the easy part. Now he has to prove himself through presidential actions. If he doesn't, then this little snippet comes off as Clintonesque and self-involved.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

True. And yet, his ideas of what government "must do" will no doubt differ from mine.

It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Again, a salute to individual achievement, laced with a theme of sacrifice.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

All true, all good. No arguments.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled.

Note the Clintonesque return to the emphasis on The Man, The Moment. "You are witnessing history, people, and I AM history. Stand in awe of Me and My Moment."

In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

The father of our nation has a name, you know: George Washington. No harm in mentioning it, since you're quoting him. Plus, there might be some kids graduating our schools today who don't know who you're talking about.

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Mixed metaphors all over the place, but not a bad ending. Nothing that warrants being etched in granite, but I'll give him a B or B+. And now the new presidency begins...

Monday, January 19, 2009

Bowing to Obama

I'm supposed to be polite and "give Obama a chance" and show appropriate respect for the man and this historic moment. How dare I question the man before he's even sworn in? (I listened to his speeches and analyzed his policies, that's how I dare.) But nevertheless, fine. I will behave myself tomorrow. But I expect quid pro quo. I'll establish a moratorium on pounding the President-elect as long as the left stops blaming George W. Bush for everything wrong with the country, "crimes against humanity," and other foolishness. Oh, never mind...

I'm reading The Forgotten Man, a history of The Great Depression. The ideas and methods Hoover and Roosevelt tried to use to solve that problem are eerily familiar and, by the way, didn't work then, either.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Some Evening Thoughts on Government

This video deserves a little attention, if only to provide a useful lesson about the difference between democracy and a republic: http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm

However, the producer of this 10.5-minute lecture is wrong about the cycles of history, especially if you read Greek theories about the cycles of history or C. Northcote Parkinson's Evolution of Political Thought. When republics--which really can be seen as political aristocracies because a smaller cadre of citizens acts as a brake on mob rule--begin to break down, they don't become oligarchies, but democracies. People come to resent the inequalities of a republic and start voting for representatives who will, with 50-percent-plus-one votes, to vote more and more people citizenship and more and more people largesse from the public treasury so as to enforce equality. This brings about true democracy, where "the people" simultaneously demand less and less power of individual senators or representatives but more and more power of a demagogic executive to distribute the goods of society in accordance with "justice," however defined. Mob rule ensues, creating a demand for a dictator, who will settle down the mob and its fickle passions. The dictator then has to face the problem of a legitimate successor, whereupon the people might choose to make him king/emperor (Caesar, Napoleon), and the dictator's offspring thereby become future monarchs. The monarchy fades to aristocracy or oligarchy, when more and more royal relatives demand a share in royal power, and the cycle returns. History matters. One hopes we continue to teach it.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

NASA Joins the 21st Century

The Constellation Program and Ares I-X flight test now have blogs. Did I have something to do with their content? Only The Shadow knows.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Constellation

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Ares%20I-X

Enjoy!

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Another Space Education Moment

I first heard about Teachers in Space at the 2006 International Space Development Conference. They're essentially a nonprofit run by the Space Frontier Foundation that will set aside slots for teachers to travel into space on one of the any-day-now suborbital space tourism outfits. The concept sounded pretty cool. As the "Vision" part of their web site describes it:

Imagine thousands of astronaut teachers, in schools all across the country, sharing their spaceflight knowledge and experiences with millions of students. This vision could become a reality within the next ten years.

What I've liked about the space tourism movement/industry is the way it democratizes spaceflight. After all, what is more likely or easier: joining the Air Force, becoming a pilot, and picking up three or more college degrees, all for the hope of going into space while competing with 500 other super-competent people, or just getting rich enough to buy a ticket? There are many routes to becoming rich in America, and a surprising number of them don't require a college education. And if you manage to put $40,000-a-year teachers into a space tourism rocket and let them come back and talk to their students about their experiences--well, heck, you've "infected" a whole new generation of space geeks! And these kids will have a different expectation of spaceflight than those of us raised under the Aura of the Astronauts.

Don't misunderstand me--I greatly admire our astronauts. I see someone like Story Musgrave or any of the Shuttle astronauts who come to Marshall, and I read their resumes and feel like an absolute slacker. They really ARE our best and brightest. But if future Americans are going to have the opportunity merely to go into space as paying passengers, they don't NEED to be our best and brightest, merely damnfool enough to plunk down the coin to go. And that would include me. The only future that would allow an English major like me to get into space would be one where I can go as a passenger, not as some sort of pilot, scientist, or technician. So I think Teachers in Space is a good idea. Maybe I ought to become a teacher. I might have a better chance than the getting-rich route!

Ad Astra and good night.

Obama's Troubled Pick for Treasury

In a sane political world, Barack Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, would be toast by now. I'm trying to remember how many previous nominees for various offices have been bounced from contention for failing to pay Social Security taxes for illegal immigrant help, but it was at least three. And this guy? Well, here's how the lead in the Wall Street Journal puts it:
Timothy Geithner didn't pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for several years while he worked for the International Monetary Fund, and he employed an immigrant housekeeper who briefly lacked proper work papers.

So not only did he have an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper, but he himself forgot to pay taxes, over $25,000 worth (more taxes than some people make in a year). And this guy wants to be Secretary of the Treasury. Aha! Here's the information I was looking for--buried in the last line of the story:
Such issues, however, have derailed other nominations. President Bill Clinton's first and second choices for attorney general both withdrew amid allegations they failed to pay taxes for household help. President George W. Bush's first choice for Labor secretary withdrew after it emerged that she had housed an illegal immigrant.

But never mind. We mustn't allow anything--Geithner, Governor Blagojevich, Roland Burris--to mar The Coronation. It's gonna be a long four years, if we've had two political soap operas so far, and the guy isn't even sworn in yet.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Another Place to Register Your Opinions About Space Policy

The National Academy of Sciences is looking for public input regarding national goals for space. The deadline for providing input is January 30, 2009.

*

I finished part two of my article on science and math education for ScienceCheerleader.com. We'll see what kinds of feedback I get--if any. I was as diligent as possible about keeping the feedback from my friends as anonymous as possible. None of them was particularly shy about their opinions. The topic was sufficiently broad and diverse that the only way I could organize the article was by stakeholder audience:

  • The National Education Association (NEA), the union that collectively represents the interests teachers and other educational professionals in the public schools.
  • Political opponents of NEA.
  • Parents and teachers personally known to me.
  • Me.

What the heck, it's a break from writing just about space, right? I'll post the link to part two as soon as Darlene puts it up on the site.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Options for the Future

A friend of mine is seriously pursuing a line of work I once considered, and then dropped: the Foreign Service. A few things I noted when I took the Foreign Service Exam included:

  • I understood American history very well, from the conservative point of view.
  • My understanding of American history from a liberal point of view needed a lot of brushing up if I was going to pass the exam.
  • Studying for the exam—reading books about American history and culture—was a lot more interesting and fun than taking the exam.

In any case, I’ve been feeding my friend—who is not on the same section of the political spectrum that I am—the books that I did read. And, as Obama is coming into office soon, I thought I’d offer some thoughts here that I haven’t had time to share in conversation regarding what the Foreign Service might be in for in the next 20 years. What follows are basically alternate future histories that would derive from different foreign policy approaches/philosophies.

The Bush Doctrine Continues
While George W. Bush has been treated as the greatest evil ever to afflict the world, his foreign policy is actually not very different from Bill Clinton or his father. The end of the Cold War left America with a major question—one we have never answered satisfactorily, IMHO—with the Soviet Union gone, when is it appropriate to use military force to resolve conflicts? What Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush II have done since 1991 is to employ force when vital U.S. interests are at stake (e.g. oil, peace/stability in strategically important regions), as defined by the current president. Those interests have varied and expanded over the years, especially after 9/11, when the U.S. declared the right to preemptively attack hostile nations harboring terrorists or developing nuclear weapons; this doctrine has created resentment among rival nations.

The
Bush Doctrine also seeks “transformation” of the Middle East, which would include encouraging more democracy and freedom in the region and hopefully reduce the conditions leading to breeding more terrorism. This disregards the problem of the (now improving) U.S. occupation in Iraq serving as a rallying and recruiting point for Islamic extremism. Bush has also received criticism for holding terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay without trial; the alternatives are keeping these battlefield captures where they are, returning them to the countries from whence they came—and allowing them to commit future acts of terrorism, bringing them back to the U.S., trying them in military courts, or trying them in civilian courts, possibly enabling some to be set free to commit terrorist acts here in the U.S.

Of course Bush has also spent upwards of $15 billion on foreign aid and AIDS relief in Africa, and has received zero credit—one wonders which aspects of his policies future presidents will decide to keep.

American Imperium
For people who think America is an out of control empire and that we can't sink much lower, I would refer them to much worse empires: Soviet Russia, the People's Republic of China, Germany under the Second or Third Reich, Imperial Japan, Spain, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Byzantine empire, Imperial Rome, Alexander the Great's Greece, Assyria. Trust me, we could be a LOT worse. For instance, imagine any of those jokers with 21st century technology and a serious chip on their shoulders. Remember how p.o.ed everyone was after 9/11? Now imagine Americans p.o.ed enough to say to everybody, "Enough! You're all going to do things our way, or we'll bomb your country into a green glass parking lot." Imagine how much fun travel overseas will be if you're not a U.S. Marine armed to the teeth or wearing a flak jacket and radiation gear. On the plus side, if you believe Machiavelli, it's more useful to be feared than to be loved.

America Isolated
Despite opinions to the contrary, America is not (yet) a blatantly imperial power, as it lacks both the will and willingness to invade and hold territories for sheer force’s sake, as opposed to doing so for “humanitarian” or other idealistic reasons. But it could still happen. The U.S. could put up a full-border wall on its frontiers, disband or expel the United Nations, withdraw its military forces en masse, recall its citizens and diplomats, increase its tariffs in the misguided belief that it will somehow protect its citizens’ jobs, cut off foreign aid, send the military only to protect direct U.S. interests/properties/citizens…any number of measures that would reduce the country’s involvement in world affairs. The upside of this would be fewer foreign entanglements; the downside would be a loss of confidence in democracy and freedom worldwide if U.S. allies perceive that America is no longer interested in defending them from hostile neighbors or ideologies.

America the Peacemaker
Rather than put our military foot forward, the peacemaking effort would emphasize foreign aid, multilateral diplomacy, working mostly or solely through multinational organizations like the UN. This more liberal approach would aim at building goodwill through improving living conditions and human rights in poor or hostile regions of the world. The upsides of this approach can be seen in the
Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Bretton Woods economic order, which kept the West stable until 1973.

The downsides to this approach can be seen in a variety of places: North Korea and Iran, where multi-nation negotiations have resulted in those countries disregarding international wishes and continuing to develop nuclear weapons; Somalia, where foreign aid was confiscated by the government in the ‘80s and where American troops got tied up in the “
Blackhawk Down” crisis of 1993; Sudan and Rwanda, where strong words in the UN have done little good because they haven’t been backed by military force; South Vietnam in 1975 and Iran in 1979, where the U.S. allowed an ally to collapse and a hostile regime to take its place; and Afghanistan and Cambodia in 1979, where the most the U.S. could manage in the face of Communist aggression and genocide were weak protests and an Olympic boycott.

This is not to say that goodwill never works. It absolutely has its place, and the Bush Administration has done its part as well, from providing earthquake relief to Iran to helping tsunami victims in South Asia. However, goodwill is easily overlooked and quickly forgotten once the next military crisis presents itself. Also, if America is perceived as being a “soft touch,” more concerned about making friends than confronting enemies, those enemies will feel emboldened to challenge U.S. interests. And, as a friend of mine who previewed this post noted, long-lasting peace only comes through victory. (Jimmy Carter is rightly hailed for the peace he brokered between Egypt and Israel, but that peace was only made possible after Israel whupped the tar out of the Egyptian Army. No other nation has invaded Israel since 1973.) Domestically, the U.S. Constitution blocks presidents from placing other nations’ laws and desires ahead of the laws of the land—or the good of U.S. citizens.

America Leads By Example
This approach hasn’t been tried for awhile. It involves America
redeploying (not completely withdrawing) its military footprint from the world. Consider a future where the U.S. focuses on developing new technologies that make the whole world richer and more advanced—space solar power, nuclear power, space settlements and industries, ocean-thermal conversion, etc.—while reducing its dependence on foreign oil and its involvement in other nations’ business. Have a look here for that sort of future. It probably won’t happen, but I can dream.

American Realpolitik
The next American president could take the position that America is not equipped to be the world’s lone superpower and might work to arrange and maintain a “balance of power” relationship with the rest of the world’s regional powers (Russia, China, India, etc.). This
realpolitik method of diplomacy could involve changing sides in regional conflicts to prevent any single nation from becoming too powerful. The upside of this approach is that America would remain committed to preventing any nation—including itself—from regional or world dominance; the downside is that America would lose its standing as a consistent or moral power, as its alliances might include backing authoritarian powers for the sake of peace.

So what sort of world are we in for? Let’s hope it’s a good one, so that my friend can help America put its best foot forward—wherever he ends up. Someone’s got to do it.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Some Miscellaneous NASA Stuff

Here's an education program I hadn't heard of before: High Schools United with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH): http://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/descriptions/HUNCH.html

*

Oh yeah: and the Ares Projects have a three-year progress video out there for the taxpayers' edification (the emphasis is there because there are some folks out there who believe Ares is still in the "drawing board" stage). If you'd like to see it, click here (link modified 1/12/09). It's about 18 minutes long, so be patient with the download time. My buddy Jason did a hell of a job on condensing three years into that amount of time, and the video people did their usual outstanding job showing actual progress toward the Moon.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Global Warming, Etc.

Despite the drop in sea ice this summer, it grew back in record time, up to 1979 levels: http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

*

I’m going to meander through this mine field again, partially in reaction to my reading about the “science court.” The climate change is precisely the sort of thing that could stand a good, direct discussion in an objective forum. Of course I’ve already mentioned the difficulties there: one side says, "The issue is already settled! We need to do something NOW before it's too late!"; the other side is saying, “Hold on, all the data isn’t in yet.” This actually requires two separate discussions, neither of which has yet taken place, to my knowledge:

  • What’s going on? What is the actual data concerning climate change? Are we getting warmer or colder, and how much of that is related to human activity? What can be done to ensure that we have all of the necessary data? What experiments, if any, can be performed to verify particular theories?
  • What do we do about it? Once we are clear on what’s actually happening with the planet’s climate, we need to give serious thought to what should be done—if anything. The idea of doing nothing doesn’t appeal to folks who prefer an activist government (liberals, neo-cons). The idea of taking drastic, expensive action with vast economic consequences probably won’t appeal to large segments of the voting public in the U.S., and other nations (China, India) might not participate at all. And what will the cost/benefit statement look like? Environmental activists bristle when crass “economic arguments” like that are used. However, costs and benefits need not be just a matter of dollar and cents. Why should large segments of human civilization be slowed down drastically NOW, especially if the payoff isn’t that great. Bjorn Lobmorg’s recent book on this issue deserves further attention.

In any case, until a civil and conclusive discussion or debate can be held regarding point 1, point 2 will always be problematic. Will our new president take this sort of caution to heart when he starts modifying U.S. environmental policy? I’m not particularly hopeful on the score, but the idea of a discussion is at least preferable to an enforced mandate from above.

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Learning Français and Deutsch

Having wasted most of the last two months, I'm now back to (nearly) square one with my French and German, and have all but given up on Italian, and I've got 9 months to go. I might need to focus on "the basics" for my vacation speaking habits:

  • Basic chitchat (name, where they're from, etc.).
  • Buying things.
  • Ordering a beer/wine.
  • Getting directions to a hotel, attraction, or bathroom.
  • Finding out when something was built.
  • Asking people about their work.
  • General-purpose, non-offensive Bartish humor. (Typical example: When some folks say, "I hate X," and "X" could be anything from George Bush to vegetarians, I often use a comment I picked up from my high school drama teacher: "They've said nice things about you." That should make for interesting translating efforts.
  • If I'm feeling particularly bold, I might learn to talk about space stuff.

One thing I need to keep in mind is that Europeans don't define themselves by their careers nearly as much as Americans, and I'm certainly an extreme example of the breed. Hm. Lots of work ahead. I could just do the dumb-dumb basics, but I've got the time, and I want to get a lot out of this trip, yes? One would hope.

Thursday, January 01, 2009




Book Review: A Step Farther Out

I thought I'd get in one more book review for '08 before returning to my European trip planning and language learning. In this case, I decided to pick up a book that I thought might restore my faith in the future possibilities of technology (it's been a little disheartening lately, believe it or not). The book I selected to reread is A Step Farther Out by science, technology, political, and science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle.

Pournelle has had a profound influence on my outlook for the future, and on my beliefs in the benefits to be derived from a spacefaring civilization. He is in the category of "seriously smart" people who often inhabit the halls of NASA (he worked on human factors, among other things, during the Apollo program), having degrees in psychology, political science, and engineering. Thus, he is proudly of the sort who does not suffer fools gladly. You can look up his entry on Wikipedia, or visit his web site, which is a permanent link on this site.

Now, to A Step Farther Out. Written in the late '70s and compiled from a variety of columns written in the mid-'70s, the book addresses some of the wilder scientific and technological speculations that might make "survival with style" in the future possible. These include nuclear power (fission and fusion), space solar power, asteroid mining, ocean thermal conversion (OTEC), magnetohydrodynamic power, and the like.

Survival with style means that all human beings will not eventually slog downhill toward a future that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," but one where everyone at least has access to the benefits of the advanced society and conveniences we enjoy today. To overcome the problems of declining resources on one world, according to the Pournelle doctrine, we must tap into the material and energy resources of space. For further improvement of life on Earth, he even suggests exporting our more polluting enterprises--particularly metal production--into space, turning Earth into a great parkland. And Pournelle points out that the best way to reduce worldwide population is to make everyone rich (note where the highest declines in birth rate are). And according to Pournelle, the best way to make everyone rich is to make the goods of civilization, both physical and intellectual, so common as to be easily affordable by all: the simple law of supply and demand.

The alternatives to this high-technology, advanced society, Pournelle warns, are not pretty, and pretty much end up with the West becoming poor through increased taxation and regulation in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the Third World, or the West becoming a walled enclave that is eventually overrun by its poorer, hungrier, and less educated neighbors--one can already see signs of this today, 30 years after A Step Farther Out was written. The alternatives Pournelle was discussing were all feasible with the technologies we had 30 years ago. And perhaps that's the most infuriating part--we haven't done most of what he was discussing! So now we face yet another energy crisis, another surge of collectivism, an embattled space program, and even greater pressures on the world's resources, and yet little to nothing has been done about promoting the grand future Pournelle proposed.

Now Pournelle makes it quite clear that he is not for polluting the Earth--indeed, the notion of exporting all the pollution off the planet has a mighty utopian ring to it--but he also does not suffer environmentalists, collectivists, Marxists, "Club of Rome" enthusiasts, or anti-technology advocates without a certain amount of disdain. In the 30 years since A Step was written, an entire generation, including my own, got raised on environmentalism of a particular flavor, and so his condescension probably won't sell well without a lot of arguments. That said, high technology has advanced considerably since 1979. For instance, Moore's Law, which did and still does show computers doubling capacity every two years, has led to a drastic improvement in computing ability. The 8088 chip of 1980, for instance, had around 50,000 transistors on it; today, the top-of-the-line chips have two billion transistors. We have had a 25-year expansion in the U.S. economy and standard of living that is unprecedented in world history. That same generation that was raised on environmentalism was also raised in a world where space travel was commonplace (yea, nearly boring!), along with ever-improving computers, telephones, personal data assistants, and ever-new high-tech gadgets; so Pournelle's message isn't impossible to sell today.

The biggest blocks to A Step Farther Out today are the same as they were 30 years ago--they're political, not technical. With Republicans (if not old-style conservatism) out of favor, Pournelle is often ignored. The economy is experiencing a recession, so far only two or three quarters long--therefore, capitalism must be broken! Republicans who campaigned as conservatives in the '90s spent like liberals in the '00s--therefore, conservatism must be broken! The U.S. military is stronger and more expensive than the next 30 nations' armed forces combined, but we've lost just over 4,000 men in six years in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1 percent of our losses in our four years of fighting World War Two--therefore, the military must be evil and broken! Western Civilization did horrible things in its imperial past while the former colonies are still poor--therefore, Western Civ is evil and out of favor and broken! Now, I happen to believe none of this, but the statements I just wrote are running loose through the media and the culture right now, and they are some of the reasons that a pro-technology, pro-defense, pro-capitalism, pro-Western civilization, pro-conservative message might have a hard time getting through to the general population.

Nevertheless, Pournelle offers convincing arguments. It might not hurt for my out-of-favor conservative friends to give A Step Farther Out another look. It might return them to their principles and give them a better vision for the future.