>>The point is that the space race wasn't >>a "liberal" thing.

>My argument is not about the space race as a >whole, but specifically the moon landings.

Most of "the space race" was about the moon landings. Almost everything done with manned space flight in those years was in direct support of the moon landings.

>Kennedy was a young politician who was >susceptible to prove-your-cojones campaigns. The >Apollo missions were political theater.

Not just the Apollo missions but the whole program leading up to them. As I previously stated, one of the main reasons JFK made his got-to-the-moon speech was to distract attention from the Bay-o'-Pigs fiasco, which was an extreme political embarrassment and poor judgement on his part.

Nothing "liberal" about it.

>The important point is that in a world of finite >resources, a good leader is one who spends those >resources on the most worthwhile endeavors.

So you agree that the world's resources are finite, and need to be used to best advantage and not squandered. That's a pretty "liberal" statement, and is exactly what JFK did *not* do!

>Not only did the Apollo missions produce >miniscule scientific benefit, they diverted >resources from other projects.

As did the Vietnam War and the arms race.

>President Obama will have to prove to me that >he's not going to repeat history. He could start >by ending US participation in the space station >and shifting those funds towards replacing the >Hubble and funding more alternative energy >research.

How does the USA's expenditure on the ISS compare to the moon landings, in inflation-adjusted dollars?

>> 1) It gave the USA and USSR a way to compete

>> that wasn't war.

IOW, political theatre, as you said.

>> 2) It gave a new perspective about how

>> alone we are

>Ok, but these prove my point that the whole >endeavor was specifically a liberal president's >folly.

How? You don't see a lot of hippies in Mission Control!

I think the main point, and one we agree on, is this:

The whole space-race-gotta-beat-the-Rooskies mindset of the 1960s used up enormous scientific and engineering resources that would have been better used on other projects, such as energy independence and infrastructure modernization. (The urban legend that the manned missions gave us Tang and Teflon are simply myths). The whole thing was a distraction from more-earthbound US problems like surface transportation (be it cars, trains, ships, etc.). So when things changed in the 1970s and cheap oil went away, we in the USA were caught unprepared. The result wasn't pretty, with quadrupled prices for gasoline and diesel, shortages, inflation, unemployment, and high interest rates.

So perhaps the way to view the current situation is to forget about "peak oil" and such scenarios, and instead frame it in terms of national security and economic stability.

Whatever the reasons, we're seeing record-high crude oil prices, which trickle down into higher prices for everything that uses crude oil. Which is just about everything.

War-for-oil doesn't seem to work; in fact, one of the causes for the higher prices is the Iraq quagmire. (It didn't work for Japan 65 years ago, either).

So the way forward is to change what we do so that we will be more energy-independent in the future, rather than less. Paraphrasing what you said earlier, "in a world of finite resources....spend...those resources on the most worthwhile endeavors".

The problem is that there's no single magic bullet. It's not a go-to-the-moon kind of problem, where you figure out a way to do one thing, do it, and you're a success. Rather there's a whole set of solution, ranging from making it attractive/possible to drive less (see Portland Oregon for an example), to get more out of what oil we do use (hybrids, diesels), to develop alternative sources (tar sands, oil shales, thermal depolymerization (TDP - look it up), conservation, improved efficiency, and much more.

Most of all, a long-term focus.

It used to be that a typical WASP American male with a high school education and some smarts could get a good job that paid a middle class wage and benefits. Over time there was advancement and seniority. Plus overtime for extra money. Retirement was Social Security, Medicare and a company pension.

Millions raised families on those jobs. There were a lot of them.

Today it takes at least a bachelor's if not a master's degree to get a similar job. Which means young folks start out in debt from their college education, and several years older.

Except the jobs aren't really similar. The benefits are not what they were, and concepts like seniority and overtime are relics of a different age.

On top of that, in the bad old days, necessities were relatively cheap and luxuries were relatively expensive. Go back 50-odd years, and a really nice house near a big Eastern city was $20,000 while a TV was $500. Today the TV is less than $500 but the house is half a million.

Health care was cheap, in part because there wasn't much that could be done for a lot of ailments. You either got better on your own or died.

Taxes were very progressive - those on the bottom paid very little while those on the top paid enormous taxes (look up maximum income tax rates in the 1950s). The standard deduction/exemption was enormous compared to many people's incomes, and all kinds of things were deductible (sales tax, every penny of medical costs, union dues...)

All changed now. Part of the change was hidden by the fact that, over time, more and more families had both adults working, had fewer kids and had them later, and did things like took out longer mortgages (20 years was the old standard, now it's 30 years and 40 is not uncommon). Taxation has crept up simply by not revising the old rates to match inflation.