Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________ON TO MARS? BY REBECCA BRYANT (01/07/99)

Rebecca Bryant argues that we, as a society, would benefit by examining questions such as "Should we worry about making microbes extinct?" or "What would a legal system look like on Mars?" I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm in favor of a massive public subsidy of science fiction. Let's take a few million dollars and invest in writers, library books, high school teachers, sci-fi film festivals and public lectures!
Unfortunately, not everything that's fun to plan is actually worth doing, and Mars colonies are no exception. We have yet to discover extraterrestrial minerals that are valuable enough to justify a Martian mining operation, and so the die-hard Final Frontiersmen seem to be reduced to circular arguments. Why send five people to live on Mars now? So we can send 10 people later. "Soon," writes Bryant, "life will vault from Earth to Mars, the moon, asteroids and other planets." Oh, yeah? Prove that with your own money.
It's nice to see that the Mars Society is going to start by colonizing the Arctic. That's a nice reasonable goal, and it also brings up a good question: Why should a colonist settle on Mars when the Arctic, not to mention the antarctic, is still empty? The polar regions have abundant water and air, and maybe even a little food. The task of terraforming is much simpler. And, in case of emergency, Tahiti is only a few hours away by plane.
Bryant suggests that a manned Mars mission would be a good way to revive our enthusiasm for the space program, which "has been supplanted with the tedium of watching objects circle and circle and circle Earth." In response, I would suggest that she go back and study the first few minutes of the "Apollo 13" movie, where the astronauts and their families realize that in the modern era, even the Moon only gets 15 minutes of fame. After only two Apollo landings, the public had begun to find moonwalks tedious. The lunar program was eventually stopped, sooner than planned, because all those soul-stirring speeches about Man's Destiny in Space couldn't change the fact that the Moon is a big airless sand-covered rock with no valuable resources.
I have friends who are astronomers, and some of them have even studied under Carl Sagan, so it pains me to say this, but on TV Mars will be just like the Moon, only red. The novelty of watching astronauts stomp around in the sand will wear off just as fast as it did 30 years ago, and we'll go right back to robots, which are disposable, cost a lot less, give us just as much information and are -- yes -- popular. (I remember how people used to argue that the manned space program was necessary because a completely unmanned program would be too boring. Pathfinder's success has destroyed that argument.)
If we want to spend $20 billion on a one-shot piece of entertainment, I vote we give it all to Jim Cameron. His fictional Mars will blow away the real thing.
-- Michael Booth
_______________STARR'S LOWEST BLOW BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (01/13/99)

Bruce Shapiro's article on the indictment of Julie Hiatt Steele was quite good, but I am not as sanguine as he when it comes to divining Kenneth Starr's motivation for charging her. I suspect that bolstering Kathleen Willey's credibility is precisely the reason Starr indicted.
It is no secret that the House "managers" would like to introduce every bit of unconfirmed slander they can find in the Senate trial. Clinging, despite the facts, to their theory that there is a "pattern of obstruction" by Clinton, they intend to drag in as much salacious material as they can while justifying its relevance on the grounds that it establishes their imaginary "pattern." So, they bring in Willey. And who is the most effective witness against her, the one who can most surely impeach her credibility? Julie Hiatt Steele.
Now, any defense attorney worth her salt is going to tell Steele to take the Fifth at the Senate trial, since she is under indictment. You never let a charged client go on the record while her case is pending, especially when the requested testimony will go straight to the heart of the charges against her. So by indicting Steele, Starr deprives Clinton of his most effective witness against Willey.
Of course, this all implies that Starr and the House "managers" are coordinating their efforts to unethically impede the president's defense. (Of course, both Starr and the House Republicans believe that even presenting a defense constitutes obstruction of justice.) We all know that Starr, an officer of the court, and the House Republicans would never unethically conspire in this way. Don't we?
-- Jeff Ryan
Breckenridge, Colo.
N E X T+P A G E+| Hunters are nature lovers, too!

_______________ON TO MARS? BY REBECCA BRYANT (01/07/99)
	Rebecca Bryant argues that we, as a society, would benefit by examining questions such as "Should we worry about making microbes extinct?" or "What would a legal system look like on Mars?" I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm in favor of a massive public subsidy of science fiction. Let's take a few million dollars and invest in writers, library books, high school teachers, sci-fi film festivals and public lectures! Unfortunately, not everything that's fun to plan is actually worth doing, and Mars colonies are no exception. We have yet to discover extraterrestrial minerals that are valuable enough to justify a Martian mining operation, and so the die-hard Final Frontiersmen seem to be reduced to circular arguments. Why send five people to live on Mars now? So we can send 10 people later. "Soon," writes Bryant, "life will vault from Earth to Mars, the moon, asteroids and other planets." Oh, yeah? Prove that with your own money. It's nice to see that the Mars Society is going to start by colonizing the Arctic. That's a nice reasonable goal, and it also brings up a good question: Why should a colonist settle on Mars when the Arctic, not to mention the antarctic, is still empty? The polar regions have abundant water and air, and maybe even a little food. The task of terraforming is much simpler. And, in case of emergency, Tahiti is only a few hours away by plane. Bryant suggests that a manned Mars mission would be a good way to revive our enthusiasm for the space program, which "has been supplanted with the tedium of watching objects circle and circle and circle Earth." In response, I would suggest that she go back and study the first few minutes of the "Apollo 13" movie, where the astronauts and their families realize that in the modern era, even the Moon only gets 15 minutes of fame. After only two Apollo landings, the public had begun to find moonwalks tedious. The lunar program was eventually stopped, sooner than planned, because all those soul-stirring speeches about Man's Destiny in Space couldn't change the fact that the Moon is a big airless sand-covered rock with no valuable resources. I have friends who are astronomers, and some of them have even studied under Carl Sagan, so it pains me to say this, but on TV Mars will be just like the Moon, only red. The novelty of watching astronauts stomp around in the sand will wear off just as fast as it did 30 years ago, and we'll go right back to robots, which are disposable, cost a lot less, give us just as much information and are -- yes -- popular. (I remember how people used to argue that the manned space program was necessary because a completely unmanned program would be too boring. Pathfinder's success has destroyed that argument.) If we want to spend $20 billion on a one-shot piece of entertainment, I vote we give it all to Jim Cameron. His fictional Mars will blow away the real thing. -- Michael Booth
_______________STARR'S LOWEST BLOW BY BRUCE SHAPIRO (01/13/99)
	Bruce Shapiro's article on the indictment of Julie Hiatt Steele was quite good, but I am not as sanguine as he when it comes to divining Kenneth Starr's motivation for charging her. I suspect that bolstering Kathleen Willey's credibility is precisely the reason Starr indicted. It is no secret that the House "managers" would like to introduce every bit of unconfirmed slander they can find in the Senate trial. Clinging, despite the facts, to their theory that there is a "pattern of obstruction" by Clinton, they intend to drag in as much salacious material as they can while justifying its relevance on the grounds that it establishes their imaginary "pattern." So, they bring in Willey. And who is the most effective witness against her, the one who can most surely impeach her credibility? Julie Hiatt Steele. Now, any defense attorney worth her salt is going to tell Steele to take the Fifth at the Senate trial, since she is under indictment. You never let a charged client go on the record while her case is pending, especially when the requested testimony will go straight to the heart of the charges against her. So by indicting Steele, Starr deprives Clinton of his most effective witness against Willey. Of course, this all implies that Starr and the House "managers" are coordinating their efforts to unethically impede the president's defense. (Of course, both Starr and the House Republicans believe that even presenting a defense constitutes obstruction of justice.) We all know that Starr, an officer of the court, and the House Republicans would never unethically conspire in this way. Don't we? -- Jeff Ryan Breckenridge, Colo. N E X T+P A G E+\| Hunters are nature lovers, too!