From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space position(s)
Date: 29 Jul 92 05:36:13 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Clinton Space Position
-Date: 28 Jul 92 20:36:09 GMT
-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

-Political analyses?  Heaven forbid.  I don't understand US politics well
-enough to analyze them. :-)  I was merely translating some of the Clinton
-position from campaignspeak (which is as international as graft, stupidity,
-shortsightedness, and voter ignorance and apathy) into the sci.space
-vernacular.  I wasn't making any attempt to read between the lines or infer
-an overall position -- just pointing out what the statement's own words
                                          ------------------------------
-clearly mean.  Do you really think any of my translations are wrong?
 ------------

Yes.

That is, if selecting some interpretations that are pessimistic beyond
reasonable justification counts as wrong, then yes.

Campaign platforms are usually somewhat ambiguous in their wording, partly
for political reasons, and partly for want of room to describe everything
in detail. Are you seriously suggesting that it's possible to produce a
single unambiguous "translation", using only the single text source as input?
If not, then it's not just translation - there's some personal interpretation
involved. If it's a matter of personal interpretation, then it shouldn't be
put forth as "translation", and other sources should be accepted as input.

For instance, consider the Clinton statements in 
1992Jul10.013552.6947@access.digex.com. If that is added to the context, then
it would appear that Clinton has made definite statements favoring manned
missions to the moon and Mars. Given the current political environment (SEI
pretty much out of favor), if he were not really interested in it, he could
be much less supportive of it (or even speak unfavorably of it) at little or
no political cost (or perhaps even a slight political gain). This is at least
some indication that there is genuine interest.

The current Administration also appears to be genuinely interested in SEI.
Whether promoting a highly ambitious program but being unable to find funding
is preferable to promoting a less ambitious program for which there might be
some realistic chance of funding or vice versa is a matter of opinion.
I'm inclined to suspect that the *net result* is similar in both cases, 
provided the interest is genuine.

The present Administration's record appears to have been generally supportive
of space exploration. Clinton says that he's in favor of it, though of course
he hasn't been in office to prove he means what he says. Statements of 
support from both candidates has to be considered at least somewhat 
encouraging to space enthusiasts.

(By the way, whose idea was setting up a program and calling it "Space 
Exploration Initiative"? If the idea was to develop a focus for ideas, then
it has been fairly successful. If the idea was to promote increased
funding, then it seems to have been less successful.)

-I would, in any case, defend my right to comment on issues that affect
-all mankind, such as the fate of what is now our species' leading space
-program.  

Well sure, comment on whatever you want. (And so will we. :-)
Canada in particular has a strong interest in the well-being of the US space
program, which is why I have supported technical input from Canadians.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov