Hi, Tom!

While it is clear that we are in disagreement, I nonetheless thank you for your civil reply :-)

Tom Bronz wrote:

>I've noticed you haven't even made the connection between preventing impact events
>(something you consider a legitimate expense) and the space program.

Touché

I for one believe that protection of - and service to - their constituencies (in that order) are the first, foremost and, a daresay, sole responsibly of governmental organizations! Hence *IMNSHO* public funding of impact prevention programs and, in fact, development of any technology which might reasonably be expected to *directly* benefit the public, is a legitimate candidate for public funding...

While I freely acknowledge the ambiguity (in both practical and verbal senses) of the phrase; "reasonably be expected to" - and the verb; "directly" --- I feel most would agree that colonization of Mars, manned interstellar missions, and, for that matter, SETI, fall well outside said defines!!!

PLEASE NOTE: It is neither the validity nor impetus of said programs that I challenge – but rather *involuntary* public sponsorship thereof...

With genuine respect
Dan Sarandon

PS --- I apologize for my post's _inappropriate_ placement on the 'Space Ladder' thread -- my bad :(