Update: you can view my own petition for a Facebook dislike button here. Sign it - it needs 150 signatures before it can be viewed by the public on the White House website!
I was curious, so I decided to survey all of the 239 (at time of writing) active petitions at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions.
Some are quite serious, calling for, among other things, the recognition of a Sikh genocide in India in 1984, GLBT (when did it stop being LGBT?) marriage equality, transplant rights for autistic children, concealed weapons in Illinois (which, it claims, is the only state that doesn't offer concealed permits), student loan relief for Peace Corps volunteers, appointing a pediatric oncologist to the National Cancer Advisory Board, and Federal income tax exemptions for wounded and disabled veterans. Also, with about 7,000 signatures, is a petition to have all religious organizations pay federal, state, and local sales tax. This is another one close to the threshold. There's also a petition for a revenue-neutral carbon tax -- someone is taking this process seriously. Another worth looking at: a petition to declassify findings by NSA mathematicians. Also, resurrecting FDR's Second Bill of Rights.
Also, I learned about the Chagossians. (The U.S. Government Must Redress Wrongs Against the Chagossians)
But then there are the secession petitions, from a lot of states -- most notably Texas. (Alaska gets points, or loses them, for using all caps in its petition title, as well as making a Moses reference "LET MY PEOPLE GO!") And there is a counter-petition to strip the secession petition signatories of citizenship. This one would actually deport them, and has met the requisite 25,000 votes. There are more, too.
Here are some noteworthy weird petitions:
Shut down White House petitions, since they never get a sincere response, few read them, & they are ultimately worthless
This one actually has a good point. Didn't they take lessons from the Chevy Tahoe ad campaign (which might have been more successful than I thought)? Or maybe it's just being hipsterish.
Transfer funds from the drug war to fund the research and development of the genetic engineering of domestic cat girls
So, this. Why girls? Why not boys? Someone might be thinking of another kind of stimulus plan, even hairier than the passage of the first two. As it has only 649 signatures, it appears that the male furry stoner demographic can't be bothered.
Uninstall Obama- meaning remove Barack Hussein Obama, his appointed government leaders, & failed policies from America.
Ok. So let's assume they're serious, instead of trying to make some sort of smarmy point. I think this person is calling for a coup within the confines of a White House petition drive. Either this person vastly overestimates the power of a petition directed at an authority the author regards as illegitimate... OR "uninstall" refers to some software that Obamabot is using. Surely, you didn't think Romneybot was the only Android-American running for President?
Create and Approve The MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON National Holiday.
All caps are probably a no-no when addressing the Executive Office of the President. At least the petition links to a list of his humanitarian efforts. Whatever day it ends up being, it probably has to be in the first half of the month (under 16).
Stop non-citizens from voting illegally and the states from illegally sending non-citizens voter ID cards. Stop Fraud!!
More than one exclamation point should disqualify a petition. In fact, any exclamation point is probably not good. No grammatical errors, but the author is clearly pissed that the residents-but-not-citizens gave the election to Obama. Also wants us tracked nationally by social security number, which entails... what? Anything different from the status quo?
Disban the Humane Society of The United States on the basis of fraud and racketeering .
So, they forgot the "d" at the end of "disband" in the title. Intrigued, I read the text. Evidently the author misspelled too ("to"), and tactics ("tatctics"). The author is also concerned about the Humane Society banning all farm ownership of animals. Is the author absolutely certain that the target is PETA?
Require Barack Obama To Allow The Public Examination Of His Birth Certificate Records & His College & University Records
Birthers aren't back. They never left! Now in a new flavor -- college transcripts!
Stop the War on Gaza
First, the author is giving the POTUS a lot of credit if they think he can stop the war in Gaza. Second, it claims that Israel started all the wars. I'm not the biggest supporter of Israeli foreign policy, but that just isn't true. Everyone has their own line for when something is Anti-Semitic, but the mere fact that I'm bringing it up says that this probably is not a reasonable petition. Only 600+ signatures, and it's kind of moot.
United States Government recognition that Israel authored the 9/11 Terror attacks
Wow. This has 620 signatures, all of which have been entered into an FBI watch list. Seriously, tinfoil hat conspiracies + Anti-Semitism = loads of crazy. Still, worth reading, because it apparently resulted in Bin Laden being killed several times (why wasn't his word good enough?) and central banking conspiracies.
Nationalize the Twinkie industry
Sign this. It's a strategic resource. Fat people will help America float as the oceans rise, because trust me, I used to be a scientist.
For certain counties (within respected states) to withdraw from California and Oregon and form the State of Jefferson.
It's respective, dumbass. And lest you think I'm being unfair, I read the petition, and the author clearly means "respective". The last sentence reads, "Please grant us our freedoms that is promised to us". Also, California appears to be "to [sic] diverse". It looks like Fallout 2 nailed the characterization of the average resident.
Establish new legal system of motorcycle riding "Judges" who serve as police, judge, jury, and executioner all in one.
Nice. Nearly 3,000 signatures, and 20 days to go. "That's Honorable Hell's Angels to you, bitch!"
Allow United States Military service members to place their hands in their pockets.
I did not know this was not permitted. Maybe it's seen as threatening to the local population. Maybe it inhibits readiness -- I've never tried to shoot a gun from a position of hands in pocket, but I can imagine it would be difficult. Bonus points for borrowing from the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence, and for being
provide University graduates ability to trade their diplomas back for 100% tuition refunds.
And I thought I was bitter about college.
We, the People, DEMAND an immediate, thorough and honest investigation into GEO-ENGINEERING, HAARP, & "CHEMTRAILS"
Lost points for shouting. Claims that we are the victims of biochemical warfare.
Support a Resolution of Expulsion of Mitch McConnell from the Senate for his disloyalty to the United States.
Was joking about the practice of ostracism via White House petitions. Evidently someone beat me to it, and is very specific.This was at least educational -- it claims that the Senate has expelled fifteen members in its history. Not a McConnell fan (though I do think he should have the screen name McConnellSanders), but I think this is a bit harsh, and probably not a good idea to approach this via the executive branch.
have the President to attend a Fark.com party. If scheduling does not permit, at least have a beer with Drew Curtis
Nicely done. Free advertising FTW!
End to the War On Coal, end the job killing policies of the EPA and require an economic impact analysis of new policies
Evidently this suggests that there is no economic impact report done for new pieces of regulation. Also, I'm no expert, but I think coal's been losing the war in the marketplace for some time. It currently has over 25,000 signers, so a response will be forthcoming.
Recount the election!
Nearly 64,000 signatures. Self-explanatory.
Include Licensed Naturopathic Physicians as primary care providers in the Federal Healthcare Law (Obamacare).
Not sure it will make it (13,853, with 14 days to go). Perhaps like homeopathy, with fewer votes, it will be even stronger.
Repeal the House of Representatives Resolution 121 to stop aggravating int'l harassment by Korean propaganda & lies!
Persuade South Korea (the ROK) to accept Japan's proposal on territorial dispute over islets.
Remove the monument and not to support any international harassment related to this issue against the people of Japan.
I was not expecting to see a Japan lobby in these petitions. AIPAC is nowhere near here, other than a single proposal to support Israel no matter what (which probably does not have AIPAC involvement). I'm not sure if this is a testament to the weakness of the Japan lobby (also the Polish lobby), or if there are some Tule Lake folks that remain embittered. (Ask Google or your JA friends about the last bit.)
Note: these all have over 25,000 signatures. I didn't even know there were that many JA's left in America that were Internet-capable and gave a shit about politics. (Kidding. Barely.)
Light the White House Purple to Celebrate 75th Anniversary of March of Dimes and as Symbol of Hope to Preemie Families
It's over the threshold, and seems like a nice thing to do. Precedents, yes, but it's got the best shot of all of the petitions I've seen.
Stop destruction of our U-233 for more NASA space exploration, new cancer treatments and thorium based energy abundance!
I only learned recently about a small, obsessive group that believes in Thorium reactors. I'm ashamed that as a physics major, I don't know much about this type of reactor. But the vibe I got was similar to other groups that feel victimized and persecuted. (Related: see the surprisingly weakly supported petition, Answer ALL the questions posed by Congressman Ron Paul in his final speech on the House floor, Nov. 14, 2012.)
Help Free D. Randall Blythe From Prage, Czech Republic. Where he is falsely accused of commiting Manslaughter.
This is one of several petitions that ask for an intervention of some sort (pardon, reopened investigation, etc.) for a specific criminal case. I chose this one because it concerns a crime outside of the United States, thereby possibly necessitating federal involvement and because it is the only one above the threshold. If nothing else, the band Lamb of God has a decent number of fans.
What this taught me is that there is a paucity of well-written petitions. I've decided to create my own -- stay tuned!
Showing posts with label policy-science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy-science. Show all posts
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Part 1: The Expert is Dead!
Nowhere is it more clear that the expert is dead than in political discourse over climate change in America.
More evidence won't help the case of global warming/climate change environmentalists. More evidence would only help if there was a consensus on the legitimacy of the evidence, as well as a better sense of the baseline levels of crackpots in the scientific process. (The latter is necessary to judge roughly whether the current levels of dissent about anthropogenic global warming are actually indicative of a real "debate" or "open question".)
Scientists can't defend the models and implications of climate change if scientists themselves, and perhaps the scientific process in general, is regarded as illegitimate. Consequently, I am pessimistic about the prospects of "education" or "more, better evidence" changing the politics of climate change. More research, of course, will help refine models and provide, hopefully, better predictive power for mitigation efforts.
In case what I've said is completely beyond comprehension of those reading this for whom science in general, and scientists in particular, take that they are legitimate as a given, let me use what I believe to be an accessible example.
Many (but not all) scientists are somewhere between agnostic and atheist. For them, Biblical literalism is seen as ridiculous because the Holy Bible itself lacks legitimacy, either as absolute historical truth, or a legal/moral authority. Quoting scripture to justify an interpretation of God's will won't convince an atheist for pretty obvious reasons - the entire line of argument is seen as starting from a bad foundation.
Now, there will be people who argue that this is an unfair comparison. Science, they might say, is based on observable, testable results, while religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, is not.
That's not the point.
The point is that it is often a waste of time to argue with someone using what you perceive as gold but the other person perceives as crap. All it does is reinforce your own prejudices and piss everyone the hell off.
I think that the grumbling I hear/read from economic conservatives, moderates, and intellectuals about the ridiculousness of present-day politics comes from the decline of the legitimacy of experts. Americans, historically, have distrusted central authority. But during certain periods (the Cold War being a particularly good example), experts in general, and scientists in particular, were held in particularly high esteem. They were seen as highly trusted, dependable, and patriotic.
So what happened?
I'm speculating that it could be traced to three reasons.
1. The gulf between promises and reality
Remember when we were supposed to have floating cars by the 1970s? Or travel to Europa in phallic spacecraft by 2001? These didn't happen. And while we do have things that, upon further contemplation, may be even more amazing (and useful) , it still remains that the nature of both funding and human behavior causes advocates of long-term projects, however necessary, to often overpromise and underdeliver. If one manages expectations appropriately, it is possible that one will lose funding to those that are willing to promise the Moon (sometimes literally). Consensus projects like National Science Foundation Decadal Surveys are supposed to counteract this possibility, but this process is not immune to abuse, or more probably, managerial incompetence.
2. The abuse of public trust and scientific research by a few bad apples
Many scientists were, and remain, exemplary models not only of professionalism, but also of citizenship. The bad apples are rare - but they do damage far out of proportion of their numbers. Every scandal, every instance of academic fraud, or even the suggestion of fraud, damages the public trust in the scientific process, and those engaged in research.
During the Cold War, science had it pretty good, physicists in particular. Masters of the atomic bomb, they had unparalleled access to policymaking and funding priorities. Some departed company from real science and became engaged in influence peddling. There are probably many examples of this, but the example talked about in my field was Edward Teller. In addition to leading the development of the thermonuclear bomb (the H-bomb), he ruined Oppenheimer by leveling McCarthyist charges against him, advocated creation of harbors using nuclear weapons, and promoted the Strategic Defense Initiative (a missile shield), a program that, then as well as more recently, has been a huge drain on resources and promising very little in terms of practical ICBM defense.
More recently, the scandal involving Andrew Wakefield and the relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism proved tremendously destructive to science. It caused tremendous fallout, both within the medical community and outside of it, and its impact is still being felt, whether in misinformation spread by a prominent (former) presidential candidate , or the creation of a public health hazard due to declining vaccination rates or the mailing of infected lollipops.
3. Lack of contact between professional researchers and the public
By its nature, scientific research is challenging and demanding. It takes a very specific type of person, with very specific priorities, to be successful in research science as it is currently constructed. Research is also conducted by a relatively small percentage of people. It is also true that these people don't always fit into mainstream patterns. For example, a former professor once told me that 94% of AAAS members are atheists. Even if he was off by a factor of two, that would still indicate a divergence in cultural values from mainstream America.
Interestingly enough, there are parallels to the cultural effects of having a professional military in which service is limited to about 1% of the US population, and generally more prevalent in the South than in other parts of the country. The experiences are widely divergent, obviously. But the fact remains - when you have a small minority of the population engaged in specialized work, or with very distinct experiences, integration with and understanding by the rest of society is often lacking.
One great counterexample I have for this: the liberal churches I have attended in my life. In both the church I grew up in, Montebello Plymouth United Church of Christ, and the church I attended in graduate school, St. Paul's United Methodist Church, there was a sizable scientific population, and also a majority of non-scientists. We got along well. It may have helped that the churches were liberal, and that, whatever doctrinal differences individuals may have had, generally we adhered to that key principle of Jesus:"Don't be an asshole."
4. Neo-Ludditism
Americans love technology; NSF surveys indicate that we are one of the most techno-friendly cultures of the OECD. But I don't think we love science. Especially recently, I think we see technology and science in terms of a divergence between opportunities afforded the technical elite and the rest of us. When the narrative shifts away from "working on the arsenal of freedom" to "20-year old college dropout Internet millionaire", look out!
There might be other cultural effects here - anti-nerd tendencies, jealousy/anger toward academically successful kids, etc. They all feed into this odd combination of a love of gadgetry but a distaste for science, especially if science is somehow tied to the obsolescence of your job.
5. The dilution of the definition of "expert".
"Expert" used to mean something pretty specific. It meant that someone was well-respected by his or her peers, had made critical contributions to the field, etc. Now that news has become more entertainment-based, anyone can be an expert, a "talking head". This has debased the value of the title "expert". There's a lot I could write about this, especially in its relationship to the proliferation of "think tanks" that are, functionally, lobbying and advocacy groups. But time grows short, and this post is long enough already. But don't confuse brevity with unimportance - this is a critical aspect of the modern American story of expertise. I just don't know if it is a symptom or a cause (likely both).
Next post: The expert is dead! Long live the expert?
More evidence won't help the case of global warming/climate change environmentalists. More evidence would only help if there was a consensus on the legitimacy of the evidence, as well as a better sense of the baseline levels of crackpots in the scientific process. (The latter is necessary to judge roughly whether the current levels of dissent about anthropogenic global warming are actually indicative of a real "debate" or "open question".)
Scientists can't defend the models and implications of climate change if scientists themselves, and perhaps the scientific process in general, is regarded as illegitimate. Consequently, I am pessimistic about the prospects of "education" or "more, better evidence" changing the politics of climate change. More research, of course, will help refine models and provide, hopefully, better predictive power for mitigation efforts.
In case what I've said is completely beyond comprehension of those reading this for whom science in general, and scientists in particular, take that they are legitimate as a given, let me use what I believe to be an accessible example.
Many (but not all) scientists are somewhere between agnostic and atheist. For them, Biblical literalism is seen as ridiculous because the Holy Bible itself lacks legitimacy, either as absolute historical truth, or a legal/moral authority. Quoting scripture to justify an interpretation of God's will won't convince an atheist for pretty obvious reasons - the entire line of argument is seen as starting from a bad foundation.
Now, there will be people who argue that this is an unfair comparison. Science, they might say, is based on observable, testable results, while religion in general, and fundamentalist Christianity in particular, is not.
That's not the point.
The point is that it is often a waste of time to argue with someone using what you perceive as gold but the other person perceives as crap. All it does is reinforce your own prejudices and piss everyone the hell off.
I think that the grumbling I hear/read from economic conservatives, moderates, and intellectuals about the ridiculousness of present-day politics comes from the decline of the legitimacy of experts. Americans, historically, have distrusted central authority. But during certain periods (the Cold War being a particularly good example), experts in general, and scientists in particular, were held in particularly high esteem. They were seen as highly trusted, dependable, and patriotic.
So what happened?
I'm speculating that it could be traced to three reasons.
1. The gulf between promises and reality
Remember when we were supposed to have floating cars by the 1970s? Or travel to Europa in phallic spacecraft by 2001? These didn't happen. And while we do have things that, upon further contemplation, may be even more amazing (and useful) , it still remains that the nature of both funding and human behavior causes advocates of long-term projects, however necessary, to often overpromise and underdeliver. If one manages expectations appropriately, it is possible that one will lose funding to those that are willing to promise the Moon (sometimes literally). Consensus projects like National Science Foundation Decadal Surveys are supposed to counteract this possibility, but this process is not immune to abuse, or more probably, managerial incompetence.
2. The abuse of public trust and scientific research by a few bad apples
Many scientists were, and remain, exemplary models not only of professionalism, but also of citizenship. The bad apples are rare - but they do damage far out of proportion of their numbers. Every scandal, every instance of academic fraud, or even the suggestion of fraud, damages the public trust in the scientific process, and those engaged in research.
During the Cold War, science had it pretty good, physicists in particular. Masters of the atomic bomb, they had unparalleled access to policymaking and funding priorities. Some departed company from real science and became engaged in influence peddling. There are probably many examples of this, but the example talked about in my field was Edward Teller. In addition to leading the development of the thermonuclear bomb (the H-bomb), he ruined Oppenheimer by leveling McCarthyist charges against him, advocated creation of harbors using nuclear weapons, and promoted the Strategic Defense Initiative (a missile shield), a program that, then as well as more recently, has been a huge drain on resources and promising very little in terms of practical ICBM defense.
More recently, the scandal involving Andrew Wakefield and the relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism proved tremendously destructive to science. It caused tremendous fallout, both within the medical community and outside of it, and its impact is still being felt, whether in misinformation spread by a prominent (former) presidential candidate , or the creation of a public health hazard due to declining vaccination rates or the mailing of infected lollipops.
3. Lack of contact between professional researchers and the public
By its nature, scientific research is challenging and demanding. It takes a very specific type of person, with very specific priorities, to be successful in research science as it is currently constructed. Research is also conducted by a relatively small percentage of people. It is also true that these people don't always fit into mainstream patterns. For example, a former professor once told me that 94% of AAAS members are atheists. Even if he was off by a factor of two, that would still indicate a divergence in cultural values from mainstream America.
Interestingly enough, there are parallels to the cultural effects of having a professional military in which service is limited to about 1% of the US population, and generally more prevalent in the South than in other parts of the country. The experiences are widely divergent, obviously. But the fact remains - when you have a small minority of the population engaged in specialized work, or with very distinct experiences, integration with and understanding by the rest of society is often lacking.
One great counterexample I have for this: the liberal churches I have attended in my life. In both the church I grew up in, Montebello Plymouth United Church of Christ, and the church I attended in graduate school, St. Paul's United Methodist Church, there was a sizable scientific population, and also a majority of non-scientists. We got along well. It may have helped that the churches were liberal, and that, whatever doctrinal differences individuals may have had, generally we adhered to that key principle of Jesus:"Don't be an asshole."
4. Neo-Ludditism
Americans love technology; NSF surveys indicate that we are one of the most techno-friendly cultures of the OECD. But I don't think we love science. Especially recently, I think we see technology and science in terms of a divergence between opportunities afforded the technical elite and the rest of us. When the narrative shifts away from "working on the arsenal of freedom" to "20-year old college dropout Internet millionaire", look out!
There might be other cultural effects here - anti-nerd tendencies, jealousy/anger toward academically successful kids, etc. They all feed into this odd combination of a love of gadgetry but a distaste for science, especially if science is somehow tied to the obsolescence of your job.
5. The dilution of the definition of "expert".
"Expert" used to mean something pretty specific. It meant that someone was well-respected by his or her peers, had made critical contributions to the field, etc. Now that news has become more entertainment-based, anyone can be an expert, a "talking head". This has debased the value of the title "expert". There's a lot I could write about this, especially in its relationship to the proliferation of "think tanks" that are, functionally, lobbying and advocacy groups. But time grows short, and this post is long enough already. But don't confuse brevity with unimportance - this is a critical aspect of the modern American story of expertise. I just don't know if it is a symptom or a cause (likely both).
Next post: The expert is dead! Long live the expert?
Friday, April 16, 2010
Quick comparison between Obama's space policy speech on Thursday and Kennedy's Moon speech
Counting words in a speech isn't the same as analyzing content. However, it does provide some quick and interesting clues, especially when contrasted with speeches of similar scope and ambition. That's why I love Wordle. Here's a quick comparison between Obama's space policy address at Kennedy Space Center on Thursday, April 15 and Kennedy's "Moon" speech at Rice University.
Obama's Address on Thursday
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Resurrected Facebook Post No. 3: In Memoriam, Ed Salpeter
I created this group to commemorate the passing of one of the senior statesmen of astrophysics, Edwin (Ed) Ernest Salpeter, who passed away today.
I'm hoping everyone will take a bit of time to post your memories or thoughts about Ed on this group.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dale Corson
It appears a new book and DVD has come out on the life of Cornell President Dale Corson. I look forward to reading this.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Sept09/CorsonLegacy.html
I had the opportunity to interview Dale a couple times at the Kendall retirement community in preparation for a 50th anniversary Sputnik panel discussion. He is, today, at 95 years young, a bright and wonderful conversationalist. I began to understand WHY there are jokes about Kendal having a better physics department than Cornell - there are a lot of brilliant people there.
I think the book focuses on his tenure as Cornell President and controversies centered around the Vietnam protests. But I'm actually more interested in his earlier years. From what I gathered, Corson was a figure in the Presidential Science Advisory Council and was party to the remarkable post-Sputnik efforts in science education. He was also a key figure in creating Cornell's Science and Technology Studies department.
If you're interested in science policy or the history of science in postwar America get a chance, try to get a chance to speak with him. His legacy continues to be written - as are all of ours - by simple words and stories that, unknown to the speaker, sticks with the listener for a long time.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Science Friday - Food security and Science in America
I've had a head cold all week. It's terrible, and entering into the achy, can't-drive-so-I'll-nap-and-drink-coffee-at-Starbucks-in-Virginia-because-I-needed-to-get-out-of-the-house-but-underestimated-my-fatigue phase. I should at least be no longer contagious by the time Mom stops by on Sunday, giving me a chance to acquire whatever contagions she picked up flying through O'Hare.
One good thing came of this trip. (It wasn't the Mexican food in Leesburg - what the hell was I thinking?) I listened to parts of both hours of Science Friday, hosted by Ira Flatow. Ann, it's taken me four years to actually getting around to sampling the program. And I can safely say that your enthusiasm for the show wasn't just your characteristic enthusiasm for life in general. It's an excellent program that discusses substantive issues in an easy-to-understand way.
One good thing came of this trip. (It wasn't the Mexican food in Leesburg - what the hell was I thinking?) I listened to parts of both hours of Science Friday, hosted by Ira Flatow. Ann, it's taken me four years to actually getting around to sampling the program. And I can safely say that your enthusiasm for the show wasn't just your characteristic enthusiasm for life in general. It's an excellent program that discusses substantive issues in an easy-to-understand way.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
American brain drain
Why Skilled Immigrants Are Leaving the U.S. (Businessweek)
It's an interesting shift, one that started to happen after September 11 made the visa process hell. Also possibly contributing was the use of a full one-third of H-1B Visas to train employees to return to their home country (outsourcing).
I expect to see a similar study ten years from now showing that the US has permanently lost its dominance in higher education. It may not be reversible, or even undesirable, but it does have implications for the recovery and future growth.
It's an interesting shift, one that started to happen after September 11 made the visa process hell. Also possibly contributing was the use of a full one-third of H-1B Visas to train employees to return to their home country (outsourcing).
I expect to see a similar study ten years from now showing that the US has permanently lost its dominance in higher education. It may not be reversible, or even undesirable, but it does have implications for the recovery and future growth.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Robert Ballard trash talks NASA
Robert Ballard on Colbert Report
I love Robert Ballard. I grew up with his books on the Titanic, the Bismarck, and the Isis. I must have read the first two about 80 times each.
I also have a friend working for Bob Ballard in Rhode Island on underwater archaeology.
So I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw him trash talk NASA on the Colbert Report on Feb 10, 2009.
Admittedly, he makes a lot of good points. Because of maritime law, which guarantees countries owning habitable land exclusive economic zones (EEZs) 200 miles offshore, there is a lot of real estate that the US knows precious little about.
But why make NASA your whipping boy? And why attribute it to quasi-religious needs to become closer to God than historical/economic reasons stemming from the Cold War and the importance of satellite systems to the modern economy?
On a side note, in a conversation I had with a member of the National Academy of Sciences staff, he said that astronomers are the whiniest constituency of scientists fighting for NSF budgets. Maybe Ballard knows something I don't.
I love Robert Ballard. I grew up with his books on the Titanic, the Bismarck, and the Isis. I must have read the first two about 80 times each.
I also have a friend working for Bob Ballard in Rhode Island on underwater archaeology.
So I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw him trash talk NASA on the Colbert Report on Feb 10, 2009.
Admittedly, he makes a lot of good points. Because of maritime law, which guarantees countries owning habitable land exclusive economic zones (EEZs) 200 miles offshore, there is a lot of real estate that the US knows precious little about.
But why make NASA your whipping boy? And why attribute it to quasi-religious needs to become closer to God than historical/economic reasons stemming from the Cold War and the importance of satellite systems to the modern economy?
On a side note, in a conversation I had with a member of the National Academy of Sciences staff, he said that astronomers are the whiniest constituency of scientists fighting for NSF budgets. Maybe Ballard knows something I don't.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Bear, the Eagle, and the Gap
Who controls low-earth orbit controls near-earth space. Who controls near-earth space dominates Terra. Who dominates Terra determines the destiny of humankind.
- Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics for the Space Age
"The (Russian) Empire Strikes Back" was already used by the Time leader article on Aug. 12. On the subject of space...
On Tuesday and Wednesday, I attended the Cornell Workshop on Space Security. It was a great conference, with lots of interesting discussions about issues in space security. Particular attention was given to China's anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons test in 2007 and the US ballistic missile defense program. I will write notes and thoughts about the conference later this weekend.
For now, I want to broach the issue of what the Russia-Georgia conflict and cooling relations with the Kremlin may mean for the US manned space program. In particular, what will happen when the Shuttle is retired in 2010, with no foreseeable replacement until Ares-I/Orion goes online in 2016 (2018? 2020?)
With so much happening on Earth in the financial and political arenas, I'm finding that I'm a bit rusty on space politics. However, Jeff Foust's blog, spacepolitics.org, remains a useful source for quick bits of space-related news.
An August 13 entry mentions that a planned extension of NASA's exemption of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) is probably dead. That exemption permits NASA to buy Progress and Soyuz flight services from Russia, which, in the absence of a working Shuttle program, are the only way for US astronauts to get to and from the International Space Station, as well as perform manned repairs of space assets.
Read the comments - there's one indicating some fighting between the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and NASA over the testimony of the AIAA director to Congress, suggesting that additional resources be devoted to a near-term human-qualified capsule for low Earth orbit access, rather than to an acceleration of Constellation.
The United States has already paid for Soyuz flights in 2010-2011.
Michael Griffin has indicated that Soyuz flights to cover 2011-2016 would be in excess of $2 billion.
I'm still processing this information, but this could become politically salient. After all, if Florida's electoral votes (I'm discounting the online space community's impact) convinced Obama to reverse his position on delaying Constellation to fund federal science education programs, the threat of sending additional money to a revanchist Russia might lead to an increase in funding to NASA (and the contractor who wins the bid).
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Sputnik 50th Anniversary Speech
An edited, condensed version of the article I wrote on Sputnik in October. Recorded and on Youtube for a Science Communication project.
Speech delivered at Toastmasters, May 15, 2008
On October 4, 1957, Leave it to Beaver premiered on CBS. This show, more than any other, would capture the spirit of optimism and simplicity that characterized America at that time. Few Americans were aware that that same day, the Soviet Union had launched the first man-made satellite into space - Sputnik. The illusion of innocence was evaporating as the beep-beep of the Red Moon rising ticked off the seconds of the new era.
Sputnik immediately challenged the basic assumptions upon which Western security and American confidence, rested. American confidence depended upon the assumption that, by empowering the individual and not the state, a free and open society could better harness the collective energies and intelligence of its citizens to preserve peace and prosperity. Postwar American strategy presumed scientific superiority and depended upon high-tech solutions — in particular, a nuclear bomber deterrent — to balance Soviet numbers in Europe. Imagine the reaction, then, when it became apparent that this backward, repressive regime was able to beat the free world to the ultimate missile. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if the Soviets could launch a satellite into space, they could launch a nuclear weapon at American cities.
The American response was swift and substantial. In 1958, Congress created NASA to better direct the efforts of America’s various military and civilian aeronautical programs, whose petty rivalries had prevented the United States from being first to space. In time, America would use its own satellites to provide needed intelligence about the world beyond the iron curtain. That same year, Congress passed the National Defense and Education Act, which revamped science education and, for the first time, provided massive amounts of financial aid for college students.
Yet in spite of Eisenhower’s efforts to reassure the American people, fears of American technical inferiority and a “missile gap” helped decide the 1960 presidential election. Not since World War II, and perhaps never since, have science and technology been so politically central, so intimately linked in the American mind with the survival of the free world. Space exploration was a vision that transformed potency into existence, dreams into global impacts and politics into progress.
Sputnik created a host of institutions and a strong federal commitment to fund science. But its greatest, most critical legacy is a generation of scientists and citizens who embraced that shared vision of at last touching the heavens.
They were inspired and organized, trained and mentored, and overcame fear and challenges to explore the possibilities of this new age. These individuals now teach our classes, and serve in leadership positions in all areas of society. These men and women continue to expand the frontiers of science, to bring us sometimes wonderful, sometimes frightening, but unfailingly miraculous tomorrows.
No one living in the age of Sputnik, save the most farsighted scientists and unrepentant dreamers, could have imagined the world of today. We are equally ill-equipped to predict the events of the next half-century, either here on Earth, or in space.
This new ocean, like the seas of the twentieth century, may become the battlegrounds for bloody conflict. Or, space might be the exception in human history, the one frontier not consecrated with the blood of the innocent as well as the brave.
Perhaps in our efforts to explore beyond this pale blue dot, we might find the wisdom and means to build, here at home, what Langston Hughes called “the land that never has been yet — and yet must be/The land where every man is free.”
Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain — America and the world depend upon the genius, vision and character of its citizens, who dare to ask why, dare to dream, dare to challenge the frontiers of what is known, and dare to challenge themselves to become better through greater knowledge and wisdom.
History in general, and Sputnik in particular, tell us that there is little that collective human action cannot overcome, though it be matched against great challenges, natural or man-made. Thanks to that belief, and those believers, we can look at the heavens today and the earth below, with both greater knowledge and appreciation than any other generation in all history.
Speech delivered at Toastmasters, May 15, 2008
On October 4, 1957, Leave it to Beaver premiered on CBS. This show, more than any other, would capture the spirit of optimism and simplicity that characterized America at that time. Few Americans were aware that that same day, the Soviet Union had launched the first man-made satellite into space - Sputnik. The illusion of innocence was evaporating as the beep-beep of the Red Moon rising ticked off the seconds of the new era.
Sputnik immediately challenged the basic assumptions upon which Western security and American confidence, rested. American confidence depended upon the assumption that, by empowering the individual and not the state, a free and open society could better harness the collective energies and intelligence of its citizens to preserve peace and prosperity. Postwar American strategy presumed scientific superiority and depended upon high-tech solutions — in particular, a nuclear bomber deterrent — to balance Soviet numbers in Europe. Imagine the reaction, then, when it became apparent that this backward, repressive regime was able to beat the free world to the ultimate missile. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if the Soviets could launch a satellite into space, they could launch a nuclear weapon at American cities.
The American response was swift and substantial. In 1958, Congress created NASA to better direct the efforts of America’s various military and civilian aeronautical programs, whose petty rivalries had prevented the United States from being first to space. In time, America would use its own satellites to provide needed intelligence about the world beyond the iron curtain. That same year, Congress passed the National Defense and Education Act, which revamped science education and, for the first time, provided massive amounts of financial aid for college students.
Yet in spite of Eisenhower’s efforts to reassure the American people, fears of American technical inferiority and a “missile gap” helped decide the 1960 presidential election. Not since World War II, and perhaps never since, have science and technology been so politically central, so intimately linked in the American mind with the survival of the free world. Space exploration was a vision that transformed potency into existence, dreams into global impacts and politics into progress.
Sputnik created a host of institutions and a strong federal commitment to fund science. But its greatest, most critical legacy is a generation of scientists and citizens who embraced that shared vision of at last touching the heavens.
They were inspired and organized, trained and mentored, and overcame fear and challenges to explore the possibilities of this new age. These individuals now teach our classes, and serve in leadership positions in all areas of society. These men and women continue to expand the frontiers of science, to bring us sometimes wonderful, sometimes frightening, but unfailingly miraculous tomorrows.
No one living in the age of Sputnik, save the most farsighted scientists and unrepentant dreamers, could have imagined the world of today. We are equally ill-equipped to predict the events of the next half-century, either here on Earth, or in space.
This new ocean, like the seas of the twentieth century, may become the battlegrounds for bloody conflict. Or, space might be the exception in human history, the one frontier not consecrated with the blood of the innocent as well as the brave.
Perhaps in our efforts to explore beyond this pale blue dot, we might find the wisdom and means to build, here at home, what Langston Hughes called “the land that never has been yet — and yet must be/The land where every man is free.”
Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain — America and the world depend upon the genius, vision and character of its citizens, who dare to ask why, dare to dream, dare to challenge the frontiers of what is known, and dare to challenge themselves to become better through greater knowledge and wisdom.
History in general, and Sputnik in particular, tell us that there is little that collective human action cannot overcome, though it be matched against great challenges, natural or man-made. Thanks to that belief, and those believers, we can look at the heavens today and the earth below, with both greater knowledge and appreciation than any other generation in all history.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Red Moon Rises: Sputnik and the Space Age Turn 50
My article in the Cornell Daily Sun, published October 2, 2007, two days before 50th anniversary.
http://cornellsun.com/node/24971/
http://cornellsun.com/node/24971/
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Arecibo Question
I've had some interest in space politics for quite some time. An excellent source can be found at www.spacepolitics.com. Jeff Foust is a graduate of MIT in Planetary Science and is now employed at the Futron Corporation. In addition to spacepolitics.com, he runs the Space Review, a free online space policy newsletter.
For those of you that don't know, Arecibo Observatory has been identified in the Senior Review as a target of the budgetary axe. Its operating budget of 10.5 million dollars will be reduced to 8 million for FY 2007, with a further reduction to 4 million in 2011. Funding of 4 million per year is actually contingent on matching funds secured from non-NSF sources.
There are other complicating factors: 5 million for paint loaned by Cornell to NSF, which NSF will repay over the next few years; 1 million that is dedicated to the radar program; new instrument upgrades; appeals for international funding; the consultation (if any) between NSF-AST and NSF-ATM, the latter of which contributes some funding to Arecibo; China's desire to build an Arecibo+active surface observatory.... I will edit this post later with more specific budgetary information.
The key question is the following: what options are available for Cornell/NAIC to fight the Senior Review recommendation? I have identified the following:
1. Stop the Senior Review from becoming NSF policy
Cornell/NAIC is attempting this as I write. They sent a document criticizing inconsistencies in mandate and factual information in the Senior Review to Wayne Van Citters, the head of NSF's Astronomy Division. In addition to incorrectly claiming that surveys would be done by 2011 (the actual date is closer to 2015), the Senior Review exceeded its mandate (identify $30 million in assets that might be reallocated) by making specific recommendations for facility closure. One reason why the Senior Review members may have done this? Well, a number of the members have affiliations with proposed projects (e.g. LSST, TMT) that will require funding.
Either this is done on a purely factual basis (i.e., you screwed up the info we gave you), or intrapolitical stuff will fall out. (How significant is it that Wayne Van Citters has not visited Arecibo? Will my former college president, Jon Strauss, a member of the National Science Board, be in a position to decide/steer NSF's ultimate decision on the Senior Review? Should Cornell send Michael Crosby a bunch of Godiva candy, given my personal experience that he likes chocolate?)
Needless to say, this is messy, especially since NASA will invariably be dragged into this mess. NASA and NSF have played football with the funding for the radar program for some time; it's unclear whether the handoff will take place, or if there will be a fumble. Cornell has drawn the line in the sand, stating that without additional funding, the radar program will be cut.
2. Appeal to Congress to save Arecibo Observatory
I call this approach the "Hubble gambit". This approach is bad for a number of reasons.
The Hubble Gambit succeeded for the following reasons:
a. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made it a high priority for NASA to make sure ST-9 (the servicing mission to Hubble) by threatening to withold funding from NASA. I imagine that she was influenced in part because Goddard Space Flight Center is located in her state, and the end of Hubble meant the end of the Space Telescope Science Institute and quite a few jobs.
b. Hubble makes beautiful pictures that were widely distributed to the public. Many of the Astronomy Pictures of the Day (APOD) are taken with Hubble. Optical instrumentation is considerably more developed than infrared, and as such can detect a great deal of beautiful structure in astrophysical phenomena.
c. University of Colorado - Boulder, the Southwestern Research Institute, and Ball Aerospace had spent $60 million to build the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. When I visited Boulder, this was identified as the single most expensive museum piece this side of the Mississippi. Not completely sure if that's true (where is Blue Boy?) but I got the point.
How does Arecibo measure on these points?
a. Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico, which has no voting representation in Congress. The non-voting member can lobby, but since PR depends heavily on subsidies (and enjoys tax-free status), he has little clout and motivation to push too hard.
b. Pretty pictures are nice. Radio does not make pretty pictures. It creates wonderful science, but the images I see tend to be reddish orange blobs. These images are somewhat more difficult to interpret.
c. There are new instruments that are being installed at Arecibo. However, these instruments do not require delivery and maintenance by a special launch vehicle or a crew, which for political reasons, need to go into space and do something- anything- until 2010.
In addition, it's probably a bad idea to try to lobby Congress. The politicization of science has received a fair amount of press, especially in - but not limited to - this administration. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, is on my bookshelf, waiting to be read.
Brian Dewhurst at the National Academy of Sciences, sitting on the Space Studies Board, points out in a Space Review article the many reasons why the Decadal Survey is good for both Congress and science. (The Decadal Survey is conducted every 10 years in the astronomical community, and identifies the best projects to support.) In short, Congress and the science community appreciate the process because both feel the money is being well spent, without insidious influence.
The Hubble gambit harmed this relationship, and it is probably for this reason that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has not reinstated the scientific advisory committees that were decommissioned during a reorganization following the departure of Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Doing so for Arecibo would probably rip the breach further, frustrate politicians, and invite the scientific community to join political camps.
3. Lobby Congress for an overall increase in NSF's funding
I believe this approach is the best. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a doubling of funding for NSF by 2010. While NSF-AST's share won't quite be $30 million, it will be significant. Combined with international funding and a somewhat reduced program, it should be possible to keep Arecibo running well after 2011.
I think this approach also has merit in a broader sense. Astronomy is uniquely positioned to be an excellent way to introduce young children to science. If NASA and NSF-AST were willing to develop effective curricula and standards - incorporating some of the goals and recommendations outlined in various science ed reports from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Academics, the National Science Foundation, and others - then we'd be well on our way of improving scientific education and training. This is timely, especially given that No Child Left Behind will begin testing for scientific competence. Once NCLB finds what everyone knows (America is pretty bad at science), the curriculum will have developed to meet the political/policy goal of repairing K-12 science education.
Under this broader framework, I think Cornell/NAIC can successfully point to their record and active programs (scientific and educational/public outreach) to say that Arecibo deserves to be saved. I'm fascinated by ALFALFA's organizational structure. I think Professors Haynes and Giovanelli have an excellent collaboration that promotes science not only at Research I institutes but also at liberal arts colleges. Such organization can and ought to be applied to other scientific programs that will promote earlier and more comprehensive entry of America's youth into the scientific process.
All this and I still have a paper to write...
For those of you that don't know, Arecibo Observatory has been identified in the Senior Review as a target of the budgetary axe. Its operating budget of 10.5 million dollars will be reduced to 8 million for FY 2007, with a further reduction to 4 million in 2011. Funding of 4 million per year is actually contingent on matching funds secured from non-NSF sources.
There are other complicating factors: 5 million for paint loaned by Cornell to NSF, which NSF will repay over the next few years; 1 million that is dedicated to the radar program; new instrument upgrades; appeals for international funding; the consultation (if any) between NSF-AST and NSF-ATM, the latter of which contributes some funding to Arecibo; China's desire to build an Arecibo+active surface observatory.... I will edit this post later with more specific budgetary information.
The key question is the following: what options are available for Cornell/NAIC to fight the Senior Review recommendation? I have identified the following:
1. Stop the Senior Review from becoming NSF policy
Cornell/NAIC is attempting this as I write. They sent a document criticizing inconsistencies in mandate and factual information in the Senior Review to Wayne Van Citters, the head of NSF's Astronomy Division. In addition to incorrectly claiming that surveys would be done by 2011 (the actual date is closer to 2015), the Senior Review exceeded its mandate (identify $30 million in assets that might be reallocated) by making specific recommendations for facility closure. One reason why the Senior Review members may have done this? Well, a number of the members have affiliations with proposed projects (e.g. LSST, TMT) that will require funding.
Either this is done on a purely factual basis (i.e., you screwed up the info we gave you), or intrapolitical stuff will fall out. (How significant is it that Wayne Van Citters has not visited Arecibo? Will my former college president, Jon Strauss, a member of the National Science Board, be in a position to decide/steer NSF's ultimate decision on the Senior Review? Should Cornell send Michael Crosby a bunch of Godiva candy, given my personal experience that he likes chocolate?)
Needless to say, this is messy, especially since NASA will invariably be dragged into this mess. NASA and NSF have played football with the funding for the radar program for some time; it's unclear whether the handoff will take place, or if there will be a fumble. Cornell has drawn the line in the sand, stating that without additional funding, the radar program will be cut.
2. Appeal to Congress to save Arecibo Observatory
I call this approach the "Hubble gambit". This approach is bad for a number of reasons.
The Hubble Gambit succeeded for the following reasons:
a. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made it a high priority for NASA to make sure ST-9 (the servicing mission to Hubble) by threatening to withold funding from NASA. I imagine that she was influenced in part because Goddard Space Flight Center is located in her state, and the end of Hubble meant the end of the Space Telescope Science Institute and quite a few jobs.
b. Hubble makes beautiful pictures that were widely distributed to the public. Many of the Astronomy Pictures of the Day (APOD) are taken with Hubble. Optical instrumentation is considerably more developed than infrared, and as such can detect a great deal of beautiful structure in astrophysical phenomena.
c. University of Colorado - Boulder, the Southwestern Research Institute, and Ball Aerospace had spent $60 million to build the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. When I visited Boulder, this was identified as the single most expensive museum piece this side of the Mississippi. Not completely sure if that's true (where is Blue Boy?) but I got the point.
How does Arecibo measure on these points?
a. Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico, which has no voting representation in Congress. The non-voting member can lobby, but since PR depends heavily on subsidies (and enjoys tax-free status), he has little clout and motivation to push too hard.
b. Pretty pictures are nice. Radio does not make pretty pictures. It creates wonderful science, but the images I see tend to be reddish orange blobs. These images are somewhat more difficult to interpret.
c. There are new instruments that are being installed at Arecibo. However, these instruments do not require delivery and maintenance by a special launch vehicle or a crew, which for political reasons, need to go into space and do something- anything- until 2010.
In addition, it's probably a bad idea to try to lobby Congress. The politicization of science has received a fair amount of press, especially in - but not limited to - this administration. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, is on my bookshelf, waiting to be read.
Brian Dewhurst at the National Academy of Sciences, sitting on the Space Studies Board, points out in a Space Review article the many reasons why the Decadal Survey is good for both Congress and science. (The Decadal Survey is conducted every 10 years in the astronomical community, and identifies the best projects to support.) In short, Congress and the science community appreciate the process because both feel the money is being well spent, without insidious influence.
The Hubble gambit harmed this relationship, and it is probably for this reason that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has not reinstated the scientific advisory committees that were decommissioned during a reorganization following the departure of Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Doing so for Arecibo would probably rip the breach further, frustrate politicians, and invite the scientific community to join political camps.
3. Lobby Congress for an overall increase in NSF's funding
I believe this approach is the best. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a doubling of funding for NSF by 2010. While NSF-AST's share won't quite be $30 million, it will be significant. Combined with international funding and a somewhat reduced program, it should be possible to keep Arecibo running well after 2011.
I think this approach also has merit in a broader sense. Astronomy is uniquely positioned to be an excellent way to introduce young children to science. If NASA and NSF-AST were willing to develop effective curricula and standards - incorporating some of the goals and recommendations outlined in various science ed reports from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Academics, the National Science Foundation, and others - then we'd be well on our way of improving scientific education and training. This is timely, especially given that No Child Left Behind will begin testing for scientific competence. Once NCLB finds what everyone knows (America is pretty bad at science), the curriculum will have developed to meet the political/policy goal of repairing K-12 science education.
Under this broader framework, I think Cornell/NAIC can successfully point to their record and active programs (scientific and educational/public outreach) to say that Arecibo deserves to be saved. I'm fascinated by ALFALFA's organizational structure. I think Professors Haynes and Giovanelli have an excellent collaboration that promotes science not only at Research I institutes but also at liberal arts colleges. Such organization can and ought to be applied to other scientific programs that will promote earlier and more comprehensive entry of America's youth into the scientific process.
All this and I still have a paper to write...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)