First, I agree with all those who have said that this is not, or should not be, an either/or situation: we can fund both space science and hydrocarbon emmissions at the same time.

What nobody tells me is where the will and the elite backing are coming from.

Our Power Elite is so hyped up on its crazed crusade to bring back the ever-expanding debt driven economy that Reagan sanctified with his military Keynesianism and under Clinton's watch was extended to the masses as a way of keeping them quiet as their economy was de-industrialized and de-unionized and their wages stagnated. This process reached it apotheosis in Bush II, with his insane tax cuts and massive war spending. The people who run this place (Obama very much included) verge on a Cargo Cult, and want to be able to consume more than they produce forever.

These are not the people to make those here who want to mothball the space program, or those who want to go to Mars, happy. They are too greedy, selfish, and short-sighted to solve our problems here on Earth or get us off this rock to save the species. What Romm and his detractors are missing is that we are no longer citizen/deecision makers, but spectators. The power to make things happen does not reside with us.

that should have read "reduce carbon emmissions"--my apologies for the gaff.

I agree in general with your argument, but you must admit that Romm is not really talking about the 13-15 billion we actually spend on NASA, but the 100-300 billion that it would cost to go back to the moon, establish a base there, then push on to Mars. It is not really fair to confuse or conflate the two issues, and you kinda do here. They are very separate issues.

We could have a healthy space science program for 20-25 billion dollars a year. I am all for it. But given the way our society opperates, if we are going to mobilize more money for science, I would put that money into examining climate change and basic profilactic measures to reduce likely agents effecting the biosphere like hydrocarbon burning and deforestation.

It's from Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and reads:

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security."

He is speaking, of course, of the generation of Augustus. Since our oligarchs share a hell of a lot better than those who dominated and fought over the late Republic, I don't think we are in for a Caesar any time soon. But that doesn't mean that our Republic, as we have understood it, may not already be dead. I wrote here months ago that Obama would have only a narrow window of opportunity to repudiate the crimes of Bush before he became implicated in them, and then an accessory after the fact.

Are we there yet?

If you can't convict a man or woman of anything, you let them go. Period. However, you can and should keep an eye on them if you do believe that they might be terrorists. This is and always has been a legitimate occupation for spies. In fact, if you really do buy into this Global War on Terror(ism)(ists) then releasing potential terrorists who can lead you back to the real, active terrorists is a great idea, not something to be avoided.

It is far from impossible to act properly and still be careful.

I've had enough of these jumped-up petty bourgeois clowns. Since when as an American citizen do I have to obey anybody in my house or on my property? Distrubing the peace my ass. Pissing off some guys who don't like an uppity nigger is more like it.

And the idea that these guys are getting shot at right, left, and sideways is a complete farce.

I mean, when I hear lies and see people who have got to know that they are lies say them, and they don't give a shit, it makes me nuts. But that plays badly on TV, and I find that Left-Liberals usually stink on TV because they get flustered by the horseshit and the smirks and the yelling and LOOK angry and flustered by it, while the lying right-winger just smiles and stays cool as a cucumber or strikes the right belligerent or righteously angry pose. I even make that mistake when I post here at Salon, getting angry and nasty when someone peddles lies as truth and opinion as fact. It's counterproductive, but at least indicates that I believe in something and can get upset when people go all sociopath on us and say whatever crap comes to mind in order to defend positions for which they have no evidence or reason.

We must remember that at least as far back as Reagan a decision was made (or more aptly a consensus reached) among elites that the future of the United States was in finance, entertainment, patentable research, and military hardware. That was what our economy was to be all about, with industrial farming thrown in to keep a bunch of states economically viable (just). Making things other people would like to buy was not part of the equation (other than military hardware and its biggest spin-off, comercial aviation).

The guys who run the show here in the the US MUST bail out the banking, insurance, investment, stock, and bond sector of the economy becasue they committed us to that course and have no plan B. They also know that the invisible earnings they garner through that business, and the effective tax they level on foreigners by having the world reserve currency, are all that keep our prosperity afloat. Without them, we'd be a nuclear armed Brazil or Argentina overnight.