Potpourri

I like this subject line, which appears occasionally as a topic in Jeopardy. It's a catch-all name that incorporates a variety of wild stuff. In that spirit, then, I offer some of the stuff that has come to me from friends, coworkers, readers, and other wild folk (these tend to overlap):

Niccolo Machiavelli on Change Management:

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things; for the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order; this lukewarmness arising partly from the incredulity of mankind who does not truly believe in anything new until they actually have experience of it.

An interesting article by Mike Wright, the Marshall Space Flight Center Historian, on the world's most expensive lawn ornaments: http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/display.html

*

John McCain is assuming the role of the late Senator William Proxmire in railing against frivolous government spending on science: http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/411.page

*

The Ares Projects have their own FlickR page: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ares/

*

Social Media and Public Relations: http://www.pr-squared.com/jedi.html

*

The Cult of Done Manifesto. You might have to have lived this one to fully appreciate it, but it is quite real.

*

An online, non-profit archive dedicated to saving...well, darn near everything: http://www.archive.org/index.php

*

And, darn it, Doc sent me one more link, but I didn't forward it from work. Heck with it, I'll post it tomorrow. The internet continues to surprise me: there are good things to be found, but there is also a lot of crud. Calls to mind [Theodore] Sturgeon's Law:

90% of science fiction is crud. But then, 90% of everything is crud.

Losing a Bet

Awhile back, I wrote the following:

I'll take a bet on this: President Bush, being the stand-up guy that he is, will get on the tube and admit the bailout didn't work before the Democrats (the problem is, what's he gonna say next?).

Well, I stand corrected. President Bush has not backed down from the bailout or admitted anything of the sort. Instead, he's getting the leaders of the major industrial powers together to come up with an even bigger socialist "solution" for the current mess:

The president has backed the steps European nations have taken to stem the downturn, and wants the summit to include the Group of Eight industrialized powers plus other emerging economies like China and India.

Oy. I guess I should understand a fundamental fact about American politics: no leader will admit a failure unless cornered like a rat and no other solution presents itself. Apparently things haven't gotten that desperate yet.

I would like to remind my Democrat friends once again that George W. Bush is not, Not, NOT a conservative Republican. He might have support from the Christian Right on social issues, but when it comes to international or economic issues, Bush is a neoconservative (i.e. a "big government" guy). His stances on international issues (U.S. intervention and "transformation"/remaking of the Middle East) and economic issues (U.S. Government intervention into domestic affairs) are, again, NOT conservative!

One might rail against John McCain for voting for Bush policies 90% of the time, or whatever (somehow, it's still okay for Obama to vote 95% with his party--go figure), but I would also remind my liberal readers that John McCain is also not a conservative. The most conservative thing he ever did after several six-year terms in the Senate was select Sarah Palin for his running mate. And quite frankly, if McCain serves a full four-year term, Palin's influence will be close to zero, like most VPs before her.

More on the Mess

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Current Financial Mess, Again Reconsidered

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

The McCain Campaign Responds to the Science Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good.

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

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

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

Good.

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

Good luck with that.

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

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

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

Huzzah!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to incentives and rewards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good!

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

What about opening the nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck fighting the NEA on this.

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

Where's this money coming from?

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

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

This assumes that our alliances need shoring up.

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

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

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

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

True.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good.

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

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

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

The real question is whether we can afford not to.

Sha-ZAAAAM!!! Best answer yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes!

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

Good.

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

I thought the National Science Foundation already did this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about tort reform?

*

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

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

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

A Cipher Speaks and McCain’s Running Mate

I just couldn’t bring myself to watch Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last night. Instead, I did what I will probably do with McCain’s speech: I read it. That takes away the theatricals, the Greek temple, the voice, the man, the cheering, applauding crowds, and leaves you with just the words on the page. Still, you can learn a lot by reading; it’s a shame more people don’t do it.

Yesterday was Obama’s big interview with the country, as I’m sure he knows. Now here’s the thing about interviews: you don’t just want to know what this presidential candidate will do for you, though that’s the most obvious thing. You also want to know what he has done. A little background is nice—he’s got a wife and kids—but what you really want to know is what he’s done with his experience. What has he learned from it? What has he done in the last four years? We know he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We know he has been a senator. He states that has voted against the war in Iraq, but the war began two years before he assumed office. Before he was a U.S. Senator, he was a state senator. What did he do there? What did he learn? Silence. He has been a lawyer and a community organizer. Doing what? How? With what sort(s) of people or organization? Unknown. He was a near-top-of-his-class student at arguably America’s most prestigious university. That’s a lot of hard work; certainly he can speak to that, no? I hear crickets chirping.

Who the hell is this guy? If you expected to find out during this speech, you were likely to be disappointed. And, again, as an interviewer, you’d have to be asking yourself, “This guy’s had an interesting past—why doesn’t he talk about any of it?”

So what did we get with this speech—five pages long at about an 8-point font? Three themes dominated:

• Barack Obama is not George W. Bush. This is hardly surprising, but one must consider that Mr. Bush is no longer up for election, and McCain is hardly his surrogate.
• America is suffering. He sprinkles the speech with a lot of little anecdotes that demonstrate his compassion, his superior understanding of what ails the country, and his willingness to fix it. Never mind that we’re still the richest nation on Earth, as he admits—people are suffering and it will be the sole job of his government to fix it.
• Barack will do a lot of things. This is the standard laundry list of political promises. Some of them are economically questionable, such as lowering taxes on the middle class when the rich pay the bulk of taxes and the poor pay none at all; others are grandiose and unrealistic without serious government micromanaging of the economy, such as getting America off of petroleum products in ten years. There's an awful lot of personal ownership going on--"I will..."

Going back to the interview, it is interesting to note the few places where he does talk about himself:

• “If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander in chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.” You forgot experience, laddie. But I suspect you already know that. Of course experience is what gives us temperament and judgment.
• “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” Not precisely. The more specific action you take is to stand back, and wait awhile longer until the candidate develops the record so you can have a better sense of who he is and what he has accomplished. That’s another thing missing from this speech: Obama’s accomplishments. What has the man done? Ted Kennedy, much as I dislike his politics, has a solid record of achievement there. I can probably name at least three laws he’s pushed through and several issues on which he is known to be an expert and ardent supporter. I cannot say the same about Obama.
• “I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office.” Wow. Then why should I hire you? This would be an excellent opportunity to explain that, Barack, but you didn’t do it. Your policies are what they are, and Joe Biden could sell them as easily as you could. We’re not just hiring the policies, we’re hiring the man, the mensch, and we know diddly-squat about him. Admitting that you’re not the likeliest candidate might be self-deprecating, but it might also be the truth. We just don’t know, and Obama does not follow up by explaining why the presumption of his unlikeliness is false.
• “I don’t fit the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls of Washington.” Let’s start with the word pedigree, which is little more than another way of saying that he’s African-American. I find this notion offensive. Imagine an interviewee saying, “I realize you don’t usually hire blacks.” He’s insinuating that a) you’ve been a racist in the past or b) you are a racist if you don’t hire him now. That’s insulting, it’s blackmail, and quite frankly it’s rude.
  Earlier in this campaign (a year or two ago), I might have even considered, briefly, voting for this guy. And were I still a mushy moderate, I probably would. But in fact I don’t like his policies. I think they’re bad for the country. I don’t like the fact that he’s cagey and evasive about his past. I don’t think he’s got the experience—yet—to be president. That is not questioning the color of his skin, but the content of his character.
  Then there’s the matter of where he spent his career. As some folks like to remind us, Obama has had 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate. His experience before that I’ve already mentioned above—but again, what has he done???
• “But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don’t understand is that this election has never been about me. It’s about you. It’s about you. For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us—that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it – because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time. America, this is one of those moments.” I’m sorry, but the last 18 months have been all about Obama—whether he has the charisma and political personality people are willing to buy to vote for president. The lie is so emphatic, he has to repeat it twice to make sure people get the point. After all, if it was all about “you,” why is he asking “you” to vote for him?
  And I’ve said this before, but it still bears repeating: we’re going to get change no matter who is elected because Bush’s term ends in January. The question is, what types of change are the American public prepared to accept? Change will happen even if you don’t vote in November. And while we would also face unknowns with John McCain, we have a better clue into his character. “McCain-Feingold,” for instance, is practically part of the everyday vocabulary. We know more about him, from his pre-congressional life as a fighter pilot and prisoner in Vietnam to his previous runs for president and his willingness to battle his own party to get his way. I might not agree with him, but I feel that I at least understand him.
  Also, Obama’s ideas are not new; they are the Democratic Party’s standard talking points for the last 20+ years: soak the rich to subsidize the poor, regulate industry to protect the environment, reduce the military to encourage peace. The only things new about Obama’s candidacy are his age and his race. And when this speech was over, we still had no solid clue about the man wearing this age and race. Caveat emptor.

I did like a few lines from this speech, and they’re toward the end:

“You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores. Instead, it is that American spirit—that American promise—that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.”

That section is almost Reaganesque. However, lofty words are not enough by themselves to get me to vote for Barack Obama, nor would his policies be, were I to favor them. He’s proven that he can give a good speech, but not that he can govern well or that he can lead. In short, while impressive in bearing and political presence, Barack Obama did not pass this interview with me to become President. I wonder what effect his speech will have on the rest of the public.
*
And speaking of the public, the McCain campaign did a masterful job of sucking up the oxygen Obama hoped to gain from his speech last night. I had to chuckle a bit when a couple of friends told me that selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was an attempt to pander to or take the votes of Hillary Clinton voters. That might be the case, if there are a lot of people who would vote for Hillary solely because she’s a woman. However, from a policy perspective, Palin is not there to wow liberal feminists. She won't. She is there for one reason, and it’s a good one: to wow the conservative Republican base. It's a smart move. Brilliant, in fact. Surprisingly brilliant, considering some of McCain’s calls. Of course the MSNBC types now think McCain is no longer a "maverick" because he didn't pick a liberal (a maverick, after all, is a term of affection when it's a Republic going against his own party). He's being a maverick toward the media. He's smarter than some conservatives--including me--thought he was.

I first heard about Sarah Palin from one of my favorite conservative ladies, who’s actually from Wasilla, Alaska. She told me that Palin would make a good future president. She described Palin as much like herself: a gun-toting, environmentalist, God-fearing, pro-life conservative. So my friend sold me a few years ago. Now we’ll see how she wins over the country. Way to go, John. You just might pull this one out.

More from Obama on Space
First, we have the latest statement from the Obama campaign:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880
Then we have this debate between Lori Garver (who has switched from being the Clinton space advisor to the Obama campaign's advisor) and Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham, representing McCain at the Mars Society Convention this week.
http://www.marssociety.org/media/video/flash/debate.html

Busy, busy, busy! I'll take on the Obama statement today, the debate tomorrow or Wednesday. Again, like the statement that appeared on Keith Cowing's SpaceRef.com in January, this statement is not on the main BarackObama.com site. And, again, I am forced to ask why? The campaign could add this to the technology issue statement, or add another issue on the Issues list, but they didn't. Is it because Obama doesn't want to be nailed down on space policy? Is it because he might have a change of policy once he gets into office, and doesn't want anyone to know his true intentions? He's got plausible deniability: "Oh, well that was on SpaceRef and on a blog posting by one of my fans; those weren't my campaign's official positions."

Anyhow, making an effort not to be too snarky, here are my reactions to the various pieces to this latest statement:

My vision will build on the great goals set forth in recent years, to maintain a robust program of human space exploration and ensure the fulfillment of NASA's mission.

Note that the “great goals set forth in recent years” came from the Bush Administration, the same administration he’ll spend the next few pages bashing.

Together, we can ensure that NASA again reflects all that is best about our country and continue our nation's preeminence in space.

What’s this business about NASA “again” reflecting all that is best about our country? NASA’s never really lost its credibility with the public, despite the criticism it has taken (part of which I’ve given) on its behavior, which led to two Space Shuttles being lost.

Barack Obama believes the United States should maintain its international leadership in space while at the same time inspiring a new generation of Americans to dream beyond the horizon.

Well, great. However, like my gripes about McCain’s last statement, this is more boilerplate and eyewash.

Barack Obama believes that what President Kennedy said about space more than 45 years ago remains valid today: "The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. . . . We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained . . . and used for the progress of all people."

I find it amusing that Obama is quoting the man who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” and “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.” Most of his policies don’t aspire to either position.

[T]he Bush administration set an ambitious agenda for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but has since failed to provide adequate funding or leadership to move forward with that agenda. As a result, key programs have suffered. Poor planning and inadequate funding are leading to at least a five-year gap after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. During those years, the United States will have to depend on foreign rockets and spacecraft to send Americans to orbit. NASA has had to slash its research budget

He pounds the Bush Administration pretty hard here, but I can’t find much to argue with when it’s the truth.

As president, Barack Obama will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program.

This is a standard Senator’s comment—when they say “balanced,” they mean, “a program that doesn’t take money out of my state unless everybody’s state is hurt in the same way.”

His NASA

HIS NASA??? Who does this guy think he is? Louis XIV? Better check his stance on defense. If he starts saying “His Army,” watch for Praetorians in the Capitol.

His NASA not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research.

Does this include investments in Space Solar Power?

Obama will reach out to include international partners

Okay, which ones?

There is currently no organizational authority in the Federal government with a sufficiently broad mandate to oversee a comprehensive and integrated strategy and policy dealing with all aspects of the government's space- related programs, including those being managed by NASA, the Department of Defense, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Commerce Department, the Transportation Department, and other federal agencies. This wasn't always the case. Between 1958 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Council oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents;

Okay, fine. For what purpose? This could be akin to reviving the Office of Technology Assessment. I have no objection with reviving NASC or OTA; I just want to know who’s going to be on these boards, what they will do, and what power(s) they will have.

the Council was briefly revived from 1989 to 1992.

Note that this happened during the Bush Sr. presidency…

Barack Obama will re-establish this Council reporting to the president. It will oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial and national security space activities. It will solicit public participation, engage the international community, and work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.

Ah, some answers to my previous questions. Note the “balanced portfolio” comment again. Does this mean NASC would be responsible for maintaining the “balance” of the NASA budget? If so, Congress already does that.

Barack Obama is committed to making the necessary investments to ensure we close this gap as much as is technically feasible and to minimize reliance on foreign space capabilities. He also will work with the space industry to ensure retention of workforce and technical capabilities during the transition from the shuttle to its successor.
Retaining Options for Additional Shuttle Flights: Barack Obama supports Congressional efforts to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight to fly a valuable mission and to keep the workforce engaged. He will work to ensure there is adequate funding to support that additional flight so that it does not interfere with developing the Shuttle's successor.

I asked this same question of McCain’s last statement: how does he intend to keep the workforce employed? Socialism? Make NASA a blatant jobs program? I also have questioned the wisdom of keeping the Shuttle flying longer. One argument I forgot on Friday: many of the companies providing parts for the Shuttle have gone out of business. How much money will it cost to reinvent parts to keep Shuttle flying?

Speeding the Next-Generation Vehicle: Obama will expedite the development of the Shuttle's successor systems for carrying Americans to space so we can minimize the gap. This will be difficult; underfunding by the Bush administration has left NASA with limited flexibility to accelerate the development of the new systems.

He’s right: it will be difficult to minimize the gap, but not only because of underfunding by the Bush Administration. As I noted on Friday, if we have to keep using the VAB, launch pads, etc., to support Shuttle, that slows down the renovation and refurbishment of launch facilities that must occur before we can launch Ares I and Ares V. And by the way: what does “limited flexibility” mean? Let’s say NASA got enough money both to fly Shuttle longer and to accelerate Orion and Ares (some things can’t be accelerated, like J-2X development, but let’s just go with the argument for now). You’d still end up with Ares and Orion having to wait for the launch facilities to be updated before they could fly. If we fly Shuttle longer, the “gap” in human spaceflight will shift, not shrink because we’ll still need to rebuild our infrastructure to support the new launch vehicles.

Using the Private Sector: Obama will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate spaceflight capabilities. NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a good model of government/industry collaboration.

Good. However, how about upping the funding for COTS Option D, which would fund commercial launches of crews to ISS?

Working with International Allies: Obama will enlist international partners to provide International Space Station (ISS) cargo re-supply and eventually alternate means for sending crews to the ISS.

Great. As I asked above, which ones?

Completing and Enhancing the International Space Station
The International Space Station is an outstanding example of what can be accomplished through international cooperation. Though we have spent billions to build the station, the microgravity research it was intended to facilitate has fallen victim to funding cuts. Barack Obama would ensure that NASA and other federal agencies are fully utilizing the ISS to conduct research that can help address global challenges such as public health and energy independence and can develop technologies that can provide economic benefits to Earth. Obama also will enable research on the ISS to support long-term human exploration and planetary research needs.
Partnering to Enhance the Potential of the ISS: Barack Obama will enlist other Federal agencies, industry and academia to develop innovative scientific and technological research projects on the ISS.

Great, but we need to ensure that we can get up there and have access to ISS before we start doing things up there. What would Obama propose if Russia refused to launch Americans on Soyuz after we retire Shuttle?

Enabling Human Exploration: Obama will use the ISS for fundamental biological and physical research to understand the effects of long-term space travel on human health and to test emerging technologies to enable such travel.

ISS is doing this now, when its astronauts can spare the time.

Enhancing International Cooperation: The ISS has been a model for international cooperation to achieve peaceful objectives in space, helping develop positive relations with Russia during the 1990s. America must take the next step and use the ISS as a strategic tool in diplomatic relations with non traditional partners.

A “model.” Really? It’s taken over 10 years to finish, we’re going to stop flying Shuttle to it in 2 years, we’re not sending up everything we wanted to, and some of our international partners have been less than pleased with how ISS has played out. I recall hearing somewhere that we would NOT be using ISS as a model for our lunar explorations. Obama’s team should rethink the ISS “model” before using it as a diplomatic tool or rallying cry.

Retaining Options for Extended Operations: Barack Obama will consider options to extend ISS operations beyond 2016. After investing so much in developing the ISS, it would be a shame not to utilize it to the fullest possible extent.

Pardon my Chicago English, but duhhhhhh.

Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.

Okay, he’s sticking with the Constellation Program’s timeline for the Moon (good!), but there’s no sign of accelerating that timeline, is there? On the flip side, he does say “the magic word,” Mars, which Congress had all but pulled out of NASA’s hide in the last budget battle.

Continuing Research and Development Investments to Support Future Missions: Barack Obama will support a robust research and technology development program that addresses the long-term needs for future human and robotic missions. He supports a funding goal that maintains at least 10 percent of the total exploration systems budget for research and development.

Interesting. According to AAAS, R&D expenses encompass funding for Constellation, Earth science, planetary science, and aeronautics (essentially, everything except Shuttle), which account for $12.9 billion of the proposed $17.8 billion total. Given that 72% of the NASA budget constitutes R&D, this would be lowballing things, wouldn’t it? Perhaps this statement needs to be clarified.

Drawing in International Partners: Obama will encourage a cooperative framework for the conduct of a long-term and sustainable international exploration initiative. This will enable the United States to leverage its resources and to use space exploration as a tool of global diplomacy. As this framework is developed, Obama will continue NASA's architecture studies and advanced planning to ensure the American space workforce remains engaged and that America can lead the world to long-term exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, in a collaborative and cost-effective way.

This is the second reference to diplomacy. Is the point here to make the space program a central point of our foreign diplomacy?

Partner to Improve Basic Capabilities: Obama will evaluate whether the private sector can safely and effectively fulfill some of NASA's need for lower earth orbit cargo transport.

How is this different from COTS?

Leveraging Robotic Capabilities to Explore the Solar System: Obama supports increased investment in research, data analysis, and technology development across the full suite of exploration missions including the Mars Sample Return mission and future missions to the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, the outer Solar System, and other destinations.

Good.

Supporting Space-Based Observatories: Platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X- Ray Observatory, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope have yielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Obama is committed to a bold new set of such platforms and programs to expand our knowledge of the cosmos.

Which platforms is he committed to? The James Webb Space Telescope? The Terrestrial Planet Finder? Inquiring minds want to know!

EARTH-ORIENTED RESEARCH
Studying the Earth and Monitoring Climate Change
Understanding how Earth supports life and how human activities affect its ability to do so is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Because of decades of investment in research satellites, scientists now better understand and can better predict natural phenomena such as hurricanes and weather patterns. However, many of our current monitoring and research satellites are expected to end their operational life between now and 2026.

Given previous statements by Obama (and analyses by me), none of this surprise me.

Given the urgency of climate-related monitoring, and considering the time required to design, develop, and deploy Earth observation satellite systems, the Obama administration will lean forward to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system that will work for decades to come.

“the Obama administration will lean forward to deploy”? Someone was asleep at the keyboard. :-) Actually, the SERVIR project is already doing some of this work.

Stopping Political Interference: Barack Obama will strengthen baseline climate observations and climate data records to ensure that there are long-term and accurate climate records. He will not use climate change research data for political objectives.

As I noted in a previous posting, this has since been proven to be false. This is just an attempt to score political points. If James Hansen, et al., were truly being “suppressed” for their opinions, they would be unemployed by now.

Supporting Global Food and Water Needs: The Global Precipitation Measurement mission is an international effort to improve climate, weather, and hydrological predictions through more accurate and more frequent precipitation measurements. Obama will work to launch this mission without further delay.

I’d never heard of this one. It is, I believe, a follow-up to the Tropical Rainforest Measurement Mission (TRMM), which my cousin Andy (an actual rocket scientist) worked on.

Enhancing Earth Mapping: Obama will continue support for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which allows study of the earth's land surfaces and provides valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use.

Fine.

Maintaining Leadership in Aeronautics Research
A strong national program of aeronautics research and technology contributes to the vitality of the United States aeronautics industry, the efficiency of the U.S. air transportation system, and the economic well-being and quality of life of our citizens. Barack Obama believes that Department of Transportation, NASA, and other agencies have important roles in assuring the best possible air transportation system and developing related technologies that enable products and services to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
Supporting Fundamental Research: Barack Obama will pursue more long-term fundamental research to reduce the risk associated with advancing the state of the art.
Advancing Future Transportation Needs: The Obama administration will support aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, and noise reduction.

I’ve addressed this issue previously. Aerospace matters to America because it’s one of the few places where we consistently run a trade surplus. Plus, with aerospace companies and subcontractors in every state, keeping Big Aero happy only makes good political sense. However, I’ve yet for anyone to give me what they consider a good and sufficient amount of money to spend on aeronautics research.

Promoting Fuel Efficiency: Rising oil prices not only impact motorists at the pump, they are also squeezing airlines and even the U.S. Air Force, which spent $5.8 billion on fuel in 2006, up from $2.8 billion in 2004. Advanced aeronautical research at NASA could dramatically improve the fuel efficiency of military and civilian aircraft, reducing costs for passengers and taxpayers alike. Barack Obama will support such research.

We can only hope.

In fiscal year 2008 alone, DOD expects to spend over $22 billion dollars to develop and procure satellites, launch vehicles, and other space systems. This is more than NASA's annual budget.

Sad, isn’t it?

Barack Obama believes that NASA can work more closely with other federal agencies to take advantage of their expertise and technologies.

Does this mean getting NASA to work with the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to finally get serious about researching and developing space solar power?

This includes sharing research and technical information as well as better coordination of acquisition programs. Ensuring an integrated and fully coordinated national space program will be the major responsibility of the re- established National Aeronautics and Space Council. Obama will also work to better integrate NASA in a better coordinated national science policy. Obama will appoint an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy who will report directly to the president, and be deeply involved in establishing research priorities that reflect the nation's needs based on the best available advice from experts around the country.

This could be interesting, depending on what he wants to do with it; again, it’s sort of like reviving the Office of Technology Assessment. I have no fundamental objection to the NASC, so long as something constructive is done with it.

Space exploration must be a global effort. Barack Obama will use space as a strategic tool of U.S. diplomacy to strengthen relations with allies, reduce future conflicts, and engage members of the developing world.
Collaborating on Exploration: The United States needs to fully involve international partners in future exploration plans to help reduce costs and to continue close ties with our ISS partners. NASA has been working with 13 other space agencies to develop a globally coordinated approach to space exploration; Barack Obama will not only continue but intensify this effort. Human exploration beyond low-earth orbit should be a long-term goal and investment for all space faring countries, with America in the lead.

Does this include Iran? North Korea? China? This is the third reference to diplomacy. I sincerely hope Mr. Obama and his team don’t think that moving into space will suddenly make everybody get along swimmingly in a perfectly trusting environment of sweetness and light. Human beings and governments aren’t wired that way. I’m not against diplomacy. Obviously we need it. However, if an Obama administration would expect space activities to be a cure-all for problems ailing us on Earth, they’re likely to be sadly disappointed.

Collaborating on Climate Change Research: Barack Obama will expand and deepen American collaboration with international partners on climate research, both to increase understanding of climate challenges and to demonstrate American leadership in this arena.

As I noted above, SERVIR is already doing this, and to good effect.

Emphasizing an International, Cooperative Approach to Space Security
Keeping our space assets free of threats of disruption will be an Obama priority. This is not only a military concern, but also an issue relevant to commercial and scientific operators. Developing an international approach to minimizing space debris, enhancing capabilities for space situational awareness, and managing increasingly complex space operations are important steps towards sustaining our space operations.
Negotiating Agreements on "Rules of the Road": Barack Obama will work with other nations to develop "rules of the road" for space to ensure all nations have a common understanding of acceptable behavior.
Opposing Weaponization of Space: Space assets are increasingly important to our national security and our economy, but they are also extremely vulnerable. China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled the beginning of a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama opposes the stationing of weapons in space and the development of anti-satellite weapons. He believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield.
Protecting America's Space Assets: Recognizing their vulnerability, Obama will work to protect our assets in space by pursuing new technologies and capabilities that allow us to avoid attacks and recover from them quickly. The Operationally Responsive Space program, which uses smaller, more nimble space assets to make US systems more robust and less vulnerable is a way to invest in this capability.

I’ve ridden this hobby horse before as well. We’ve opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions using diplomatic methods, and obviously Iran has yet to be cowed by our efforts or the Europeans’. We can make bold, idealistic statements about a future without nuclear or space weapons, but we need to think realistically about what we (through our next president) will do if our enemies do not share our idealism and build them anyway.

DEVELOPING NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Expanding Public/Private Partnerships to Advance Leading Edge Technologies
The commercial space sector plays an essential role in the lives of normal Americans, contributing more than $100 billion to the global economy. Commercial satellites support direct-to-home television and digital audio services to over 30 million U.S. subscribers, high-speed Internet, traffic and weather monitoring, rapid transfer of financial data, and the imagery essential to natural resource and city planning. Technologies developed to meet the challenges of space exploration have found more than 30,000 commercial uses in products ranging from tennis shoes to medical equipment, bar codes, pacemakers and sunglasses, to technology that makes air travel safer and more efficient. Barack Obama knows that advanced space and aeronautics research can help catalyze economic growth. He will encourage public/private space technology partnerships to spur innovation.
Enhancing the Role of NASA as a Premier Institution of Innovation: Engineers and scientists at NASA have developed state-of-the-art innovations across the technological spectrum in areas ranging from solar cells and imaging to communications and aeronautics. Barack Obama will renew NASA's commitment to innovation-driving basic research that the private sector can use to develop new products for American consumers.

Well, good. Someone in the Obama camp understands space spinoffs and direct benefits.

Increasing Commercialization Benefits: Obama will promote cost sharing initiatives between government and industry to increase the state of the art in various technical areas, such as micro- electromechanical systems, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. Obama will establish multi-agency programs that focus on rapid maturation of advanced concepts and transfer to industry for commercialization.

Hooray! More spinoffs from more government agencies. Boo! Who’s going to pay for all the new bureaucracy?

Jumpstarting Consumer Technology: Obama will expand the use of prizes for revolutionary technical achievements that can benefit society, and funds for joint industry/government rapid-to-the- consumer technology advances.

What about prizes for more ambitious space hardware and activities?

Obama will stimulate the commercial use of space and private sector utilization of the International Space Station. He will establish new processes and procurement goals to promote the use of government facilities.

Much of this is public policy now. Do we really need more laws and regulations?

Revising Regulations for Aerospace Export Control: Some sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have unduly hampered the competitiveness of domestic aerospace industry. Outdated restrictions have cost billions of dollars to American satellite and space hardware manufacturers as customers have decided to purchase equipment from European suppliers. While protecting our national security interests, Barack Obama will direct a review of the ITAR to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security.

Huzzah! Assuming Lori Garver has had a hand in this policy statement, this paragraph just might be the most useful addition to public policy I’ve seen since Constellation or COTS. Why? Because America needs its technological market share. If our laws and regulations prevent American companies from retaining said market share, we lose the ability to make particular technologies because said companies go out of business or stop making the hardware because they can’t sell it. Fixing ITAR (i.e. shrinking it) would make many people’s lives easier.

Expanding the American Skill Base in Science and Engineering: Barack Obama fully supports efforts to advance new frontiers in technical areas, such as advanced structures, power generation, communication and navigation systems, and biomedical systems. These efforts address the requirements for exploration, but also have high potential for technological benefits in the private sector as well as in training the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Great. What about space solar power? Helium-3 fusion? Reusable launch vehicles?

Engaging the Public and Inspiring the Next Generation

I am so tired of this line. If NASA is doing cool things, companies are paying well for scientific/engineering jobs, and government is rewarding creativity and entrepreneurship in aerospace, then engagement and inspiration will follow automatically. It’s not an outcome you can ensure, unless you can guarantee perfect, inspiring, brilliant, great teachers at every grade level and every discipline all across America.

Establishing Educational Access to Government Programs and R&D: Obama's NASA will develop K-12 education activities to translate the successes of our civil space programs, particularly our nation's scientific discoveries, our technology developments, and space exploration activities, into instructional programs for our children.

NASA is already doing this.

Inspiring Learning through Participatory Exploration: Technology is allowing students in an American classroom to remotely control a camera on the International Space Station and may someday enable them to control a rover on the Moon. This type of participatory exploration can inspire students to study mathematics, science and engineering.

Good.

Establishing Teacher/Researcher Fund for High Schools: Barack Obama will support nontraditional approaches, such as student design competitions and internet-based collaborations to engage students and develop the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Good. NASA is already doing this, to some extent, through the Student Launch Initiative and University Student Launch Initiative.

Increasing Opportunities for College Students: Obama will support university programs that partner NASA, DOT, DOD and NOAA with academia to provide hands-on training experiences at the college level.

NASA is doing this already, though I’ve read quite a few gripes from Gen Y that NASA needs to improve this aspect of mentoring young people.

Supporting Open Government Initiatives: Obama will engage our public servants in two-way dialogs with the public to discuss the national agenda for space, to show how their tax dollars are being used, and to solicit feedback how to better address the needs of the nation.

Oh, for gosh sakes…this is my day job! The bulk of my time is spent writing speeches, papers, and presentations that tell taxpayers exactly what’s going on with the Constellation Program. These speakers then take questions from the audience, which then get filtered back to me and my fellow writers to be incorporated into the next round of paper(s). It’s not my fault that Americans don’t have the money, time, or inclination to attend all the various conferences and public events that the Ares Projects try to reach in a year. Would more “town hall”-type meetings between NASA project managers and the hoi-polloi help improve NASA’s policies? Possibly. Certainly it would be eye-opening for some folks—on both sides of the conversation. Otherwise, it should not just be a matter of government condescending to ask, “What, little people, would you like from President Obama’s space program?”

So what’s my “bottom line” on this rather lengthy statement? First of all, it could’ve been shorter. A few sentences here and there would have been sufficient to let people know that the Obama campaign understands what’s going on in the space business. Also, I think this document could have been structured better. There was some overlap in places, as noted in my responses above. I am still left to wonder what Obama will make of his space policy in the event he gets elected. The priorities are scattered throughout the document: diplomacy, climate modeling, focusing on commercial spinoffs, (perhaps) carrying on with the Constellation Program, perhaps carrying on space science.

The most distressing thing about the document is a lack of thematic unity, strategy, or philosophy. It's like the Obama camp is throwing out ideas to see who will bite on what. I doubt, somehow, that any administration would be able to do ALL of the things included here, even if they wanted to. My choices are obvious (as are my gripes), and there are some nuggets here that tell me someone’s been doing their homework, but I doubt that “someone” is Obama.