The speech itself is by this point so familiar that it is almost denuded of all meaning, but I found the Q and A session that followed it fascinating, and I'm glad Salon included that portion of the clip. In his speeches Kennedy The Great Orator becomes distant and stately, a figure from history detached from our own political reality. In the Q and A, however, he seemed far more human and his wrangling with obstinate hairsplitting questions over the trivial and mundane is not so different from the sort of semantic contortions modern politicians are subjected to. It's oddly comforting to know that even JFK was subjected to silly, misinformed questioners, and that the fine art of quoting out of context wasn't invented in the past decade.

There's one questioner who quotes extensively from the Catholic Encyclopedia to imply that Catholics are free to break their oaths to non-Catholic authorities. Unlike Kennedy, I have access to the internet, so 10 minutes of curious research - the Catholic Encyclopedia is public domain - revealed just what a misrepresentation those selective quotations were. The quotation which suggested that Catholics are permitted to lie "to those who have not a right to the truth" was actually extracted from an entry instructing Catholics to reject that very line of thinking. The second quotation about the necessity of lying in order to "keep secrets faithfully" was cherry-picked from the introduction of an entry on how telling the truth and the "greater good" could at times conflict with one another, and the best way to resolve that conflict (The entry concludes that the best course in such situations is to refuse to speak at all, thus not telling any lies while not breaking any confidences.) The third quotation about mental reservations and oaths was taken from a discussion about the difference between swearing that one is absolutely certain of one's testimony (ie, without mental reservation), and swearing that one believes one's testimony to be true, but is not completely without doubt (ie, with mental reservation). The entry states that it is permissible to swear to facts of which one is not entirely certain if this this permitted by the oath, ie, if mental reservation is permissible.

Which is a long way of pointing out that it's not just in the past decade that swift-boating has come in vogue. It seems that this crass sort of manipulative rumor-mongering has always been a part of the American political system. I find that reason for encouragement, as it suggests our present political discourse isn't as uniquely dysfunctional as some fear it to be, it's simply the way things have always been. Somehow, the nation survives.

Not that I'm very fond of Newt, but the whole "prize" incentive structure is actually a good way of promoting environmental research (and research of any kind, really.)

Our current system generally sponsors research through the use of subsidies, which pretty much amounts to corporate welfare. Research subsidies are handed out whether or not any results are achieved, and distributed by politicians who need to bring home the bacon for their constituents and campaign contributors to remain politically viable. Thus, getting research money is as much a function of a given (usually corporate) researcher's connections in DC as it is a product of the research's actual merit.

Taking most of the money we currently spend on research subsidies and switching to a "prize" incentive structure would reward merit, not political lobbying. Promising research would be pitched to private venture capital or evaluated within the appropriate departments of organizations, with the lucrative prize being a substantial potential return on the investment.

Currently, DC sets the research goals (which it should do) and also picks and chooses the fortunate few that are funded to achieve those research goals (which it shouldn't do, and is an invitation to graft and pork). With a prize incentive structure, DC still sets the research goals, but the market picks and chooses who gets the seed money to work towards those goals. The market is pretty good at selecting for merit, even if it's terrible at achieving any goals other than making more money. Prizes are a form of indirect regulation in that they force the market, simply by virtue of its rapacious greed, to pursue a socially desirable goal.

On the other hand, Newt's tax credits idea is simply stupid. Corporations already have enough ways to evade taxes, we don't need to give them another.