From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:50:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: judy.28SEP199211502785
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1469100016@igc.apc.org>, Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org> writes...
> 
>Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org
> 
>This newsgroup has recently contained some rather absurd opinion
>and speculation about the effect of a Clinton/Gore administration
>on the space program.  The simple facts are that neither party has
>said much about what they would do and that the issue is rightly
>peripheral to the campaign.  Most reasonable people understand
>this.

Aiming to get the upper hand by describing anyone that does not agree with
this post as unreasonable.  Sometimes called and "Ad Hominim" attact.

>I would like to comment on some of the more egregious
>extrapolations that have been made.  For example, Allen Sherzer
>accuses Al Gore of being insufficiently enthusiastic about the
>space program because his subcommittee (Science, Space, and
>Technology) has not produced an authorization bill for NASA in
>years.  All the action in the Senate takes place in the full
>committees, not the subcommittees, so this complaint is more
>properly aimed at the full committee (Commerce, Science, and
>Transportation) Chairman, Fritz Hollings.  In fact, the real
>action in the Senate is in the Appropriations subcommittee, where
>Barbara Mikulski is the main player.

Al Gore has consistently only supported only projects that either directly
support his state or has pushed his obsolete Club of Rome environmentalist
book sales.

>Allen Sherzer has also complained that Clinton and Gore are
>relying on the advice of space pundit John Pike, whom he accuses
>of being skeptical (heaven forbid) about the prospects for SSTO
>technology.  Consorting with a known agnostic!  I know John Pike,
>and if he has a fault it is that he is too much of a space
>enthusiast.

I have read John Pike for years and he has never supported anything that
NASA does that does not fit his political agenda

>Others have followed the bizarre chain of logic that 1) Clinton
>wants to spend a little bit of money on what appear to be sensible
>things, 2) he will have to cut something else and 3) NASA is the
>only game in town (ever hear of agricultural subsidies?), so 4)
>Clinton will clobber NASA.  Another chain of logic seems to go
>like this 1) Clinton wants to cut military spending a tad more
>than Bush does, 2) a lot of defense is aerospace, 3) NASA is
>aerospace, so 4) Clinton wants to cut NASA.  If anything the true
>political logic works the other way: be kind to NASA so aerospace
>doesn't suffer too much.

SSTO is sensible.  Inexpensive access to space is crucial to furthering
the economic development of the United States in the 21st century. Look at
the efforts that are taking place in Korea, Taiwan, China, and Japan.  They
seem to think it is very important to their future.

>I can only conclude that if you care about space so much that you
>would base your vote on the issue you have 1) little to go on and
> 
>2) loose marbles.  Get real!  Space is not and should not be a big
>issue in this Presidential election.  The issues are how to
>strengthen the economy and give people real opportunities to
>improve their lot while reducing the deficit and the burden of the
>national debt and healing the divisions in our society.  Without
>that, NASA is going nowhere.  Only a prosperous and united society
>will support space exploration.

This is the same stupid argument that has been advanced since the early 1970's.
You cannot strengthen the economy or give people real opportunities without
a growing economy that is developing new industrial infrastructures. The status
quo in established industries is far biased to supporting the current workforce
and not rocking the boat.  It is in new industries that opportinites have 
opened up such as in computers and the space industry.  The undercurrent of
the posters paragraph is that opression must be ended for minorities.  We all
agree to that. Fortunatly it is in the new 21st century industries relating
to space where that will most fully be accomplished.

As to reducing the deficit. Slick Willie's plans will enlarge the bread and
circuses give aways, enslaving more and more poor minorites to the ultimate
master of government.  Have you never read history where that is what the
Roman Senate did to control the people?  The Slick Willie plan to "Help the
Poor" is no more than a regurgitation of the government policies that have\
brought our republic to the edge of bankruptcy.  There are currently 26 million
people on public assistance. Would it not be better to create jobs and 
promote education by expanding man's presence into space rather than giving
more and more away, thereby destroying what is left of initiative in this 
country by your taxes?
> 
>So don't lose the forest for the trees.  Vote on the big issues.
>Vote for Bush and Quayle if you really believe that they are
>better for the country as a whole (I certainly don't), but don't
>vote on the basis of dimly defined space policies.

We have not forgot anything. You are just looking at an old worn out forest
that was planted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt fifty years ago.  It is time
that the forest that he planted was burned and replanted with one that
will guide us for the next fifty years till our own needs to be changed.  

We believe space to be the big issue. Why? Because that is our future.  The
place where wealth will be created for individuals and nations in the next
century.  If your statement had been made a century and a half ago, it would
have meant not expanding west till we were "prosperous and united".  Hate
to break the news to you bud, but that was not the case in America then.  We
still made it through that century and if we can get rid of the democratic
dinosaurs we might make it through this one.  It was said in 1936 by the
Republican opposition to the rising tide of welfare that we were sacrificing
our childrens future by adopting the pernicious doctrine of income redistribon.
This prophesy has come to past in our financial crises of the 1990's. (And
don't give us that tired lie of Regan defense buildup it does not wash)

Give me a Fish and I eat for a Day. Teach me to Fish and I eat for a lifetime.
Your party and your creed have forgotten this very simple and basic aphorism
Slick Willie has lied to you and to our nation. Yes we will vote, and that
vote will be for the future.

>Mark W. Goodman

Dennis Ray Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Newsgroups: sci.space