Via Mark Whittington, here’s a more detailed description of yesterday’s space policy hearing than Keith Cowing’s truncated summary. It’s not quite as bad as Keith made it sound, but it’s still chock full of conventional “wisdom,” (scare quotes to indicate that I don’t find it particularly wise). I found Mike Griffin’s quote interesting:

“NASA costs each American 14 cents a day. A really robust program could be had for about 20 cents a day,” Griffin said. “Americans spend more on pizza then they do on space.”

Well, Mike, there’s a really big difference between pizza and NASA. When people pay for pizza, they get to eat it, so maybe it’s not shocking that they’re more willing to spend their money on it.

In addition to that point, there’s another fallacy here, and I’m working on a column about fallacies of space advocacy, spurred by the SF writer’s panel at last week’s Space Frontier Conference, which abounded with them.

But, speaking of Mark Whittington, I’ll also note that, in contrast to his absurd caricature of the position of advocates of alternate space programs in the comments section here, I would have had some interesting things to say had I been called to testify, and I think that I may sit down and write up some congressional testimony, should that unlikely event ever occur.

I know, I know, the entire blogosphere has been sitting on the edge of its collective chair, wondering what I think about Rush Limbaugh and his…errrmmm…issues.

First, let me say that I don’t want to see him go to jail. But then, unlike him, I don’t want to see anyone go to jail just because they decide to put a non-government-approved chemical or substance into their body, or do so in a non-government-approved manner. I, like others, wonder if this will cause him to rethink his position, or if he’ll use the bogus excuses that others have (e.g., “he was in pain, the drugs weren’t really illegal,” etc.)

Specifically with regard to the “it’s different because he was treating pain” excuse, I’ve never heard any of the current purveyors of that one using it in defense of medical marijuana, even for cancer or AIDS sufferers who can’t otherwise keep food down. And as others have pointed out, few of us lead pain-free lives, and many people self-medicate for it, with both legal (alcohol, tobacco) and non-legal substances. And is the excuse for addiction of “he was in pain” really more compelling than the one of “he started when he was a dumb kid, and got hooked”?

And should he get off, as some argue, regardless of his financial and legal wherewithal because he’s a “first-time offender”?

Well, that argument might have some force if it were true, but as far as I can tell, he’s not a first-time offender. That is, he didn’t do it just once, and got caught.

No, he’s certainly a first-time apprehendee, but by his own admission, he seems to be a long-time, serial, even daily offender, and would be offending still had the case not come to the attention of the National Enquirer.

So, a key question, at least to me, is whether or not he is sorry in any sense other than that he got busted. That is, does he now, did he then, consider what he was doing wrong? If he does (and perhaps even if he doesn’t) he may be relieved that he got caught, because it forced him to get treatment and get the monkey off his back.

And if he does believe that what he was doing is wrong, will he be willing to take his medicine (so to speak) and pay the criminal penalty for it? One suspects not, since he’s already lawyered up, and is likely to be treated much differently than someone with few financial resources, and much less fame.

And if he doesn’t, then he’s saying that the current laws regulating prescription drugs must be wrong (unless he takes a narcissistic viewpoint that it might be wrong for some, but not him).

Some have argued that there’s no hypocrisy here, or that hypocrisy is not the worst thing in the world–that it’s better to at least preach the right thing, even if you’re unwilling to practice it. And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that, except that what is sauce for the goose should be at least a slight reduction for the gander. If Rush is unwilling to take his legal punishment for his long-time abuse of the drug laws that he’s mostly stoutly defended for years, he shouldn’t any longer be making the case for locking up a kid with a few ounces of grass.

That’s what I think, anyway. But that’s just me.

[Update on Friday late morning]

Jacob Sullum has some further thoughts.

There were congressional hearings on the nation’s goals in space today, and Keith Cowing was apparently present.

Drs. Griffin, Huntress, and Murray all called for dramatic increases in NASA’s budget and a clear, cogent focus on a clear destination in space – going to the Moon/and or Mars featured prominently in their remarks. Dr. Koss semeed a bit unsure of where he stood, and Dr. Roland repeated his assertion that we should slow down and that we retreat from human spaceflight with our tail between our legs.

Not surprising, considering that the lineup of witnesses was the usual suspects. As Clark Lindsey points out, “no alt.space types in this lineup.”

And to quote Keith in another context, “Yawn.”

First it was Tokyo Rose, then Hanoi Jane, and now this.

“It’s difficult to be in France and criticise my government…”

But not too difficult apparently, because she manages.

My latest Fox column is up. It’s a more concise version of my previous analysis of the new launch regulation legislation. Bottom line–I endorse it, and encourage people to get their representatives to become sponsors.

Shenzhou should be landing in a few minutes (Oberg predicts 22:25 UT).

[Update at 4 PM PDT]

He landed safely. Congratulations to the engineering team.

Someone talked the Gray Lady into publishing a boilerplate proposal to fix our space program–let’s go to the Moon! (registration required)

Yawn…

These pieces always assume that there’s nothing wrong with the way we’re doing space that a spiffy new goal won’t fix up. And of course, we should not only go to the Moon, but we should do it as an international venture. Sure, why not? After all, just look how well it worked out with the space station…

These people need to realize that, until we tackle and truly solve the problem of access to orbit, the rest of this is pipe dreams, and if we do solve it, we won’t have to argue about what we should be spending NASA’s money on, because we’ll be able to afford it ourselves.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, we haven’t been teaching college students to think, but things are getting better.