Obama should be much more like George H W Bush

Yes, the comparison would probably make him cringe, but Freeman Dyson makes an interesting and accurate observation in an interview. He notes that the two presidents most responsible for dramatic arms reductions were both Republican; Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush.

HW especially reduced nuclear weapons stockpiles by a greater percentage than any other president. He was responsible for negotiating the START treaty with the Soviet Union which remains the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history; its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence.

As Dyson notes, for all the enthusiasm on the left, Obama is actually doing much less than both Reagan and Bush and needs to do much more to reduce nukes. Maybe, as Dyson wryly says, one needs to be a right wing Republican to get rid of nuclear weapons.

"Dyson: Well he should be doing much more. I mean this is… I like Obama and I like what he is doing, but this is not at all impressive. George Bush, Sr., did far more. I mean George Bush, Sr., got rid of more than half of our nuclear weapons just like that. He was the one who really got rid of nuclear weapons on a big scale, but George Bush, Sr., was careful because he was a Republican. He did it very quietly. He didn’t want to have his name associated with that, but he got it done. Of course with Obama it’s sort of the opposite that he would like to get the credit for it, but he is not really doing it, and so it’s, I think he should be doing far more and I hope he will, but he is in a much more difficult position. It helps to be a right-wing Republican if you want to disarm..."

The official slide into absurdity

There's been so much said about Obama prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize that I cannot possibly add to it. This was one of the very few times when both his detractors and his supporters were united in their recognition of this absurdity. I bet the news has given a headache to Obama and undoubtedly introduced another lofty expectation and complication in his life.

Suffice it to say that it's at times like this that I feel gratified to be working in the sciences. Sure, Nobel Prizes in the sciences have also been controversial, but nowhere as controversial as the literature, peace and economics prizes. The peace prize has officially turned into a joke and the economics prize is close to being one. But the ribosome, DNA structure, symmetry breaking in weak interactions and high-temperature ceramic superconductors have a ring of certainty and permanence that no achievement in finance or peace can have, although an achievement in literature might come close to being this way. Uncle Alby's words speak again; "Politics is ephemeral but an equation is forever"...

Missile shield to be scrapped

It's a great day. This piece of news makes me feel extremely gratified as I am sure it does many others. Missile defense against ICBMs has been an eternal bug that has bitten almost every President since 1960. The Bush administration had aggressively pushed plans to implement a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. There has always been evidence that the efficacy of such a shield will ultimately be severely limited by the basic laws of physics, and that the adversary can essentially and cheaply overwhelm the defense with decoys and countermeasures.

I have written about these limitations and studies about them several times before (see below). The best article arguing against the European missile shield is a May 2008 article by Theodore Postol and George Lewis in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (free PDF here).

And as arms expert Pavel Podvig succinctly wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists only three days back, it's not just about the technology, but it's about a fundamentally flawed concept:

"The fundamental problem with the argument is that missile defense will never live up to its expectations. Let me say that again: Missile defense will never make a shred of difference when it comes to its primary mission--protecting a country from the threat of a nuclear missile attack. That isn't to say that advanced sensors and interceptors someday won't be able to deal with sophisticated missiles and decoys. They probably will. But again, this won't overcome the fundamental challenge of keeping a nation safe against a nuclear threat, because it would take only a small probability of success to make such a threat credible while missile defense would need to offer absolute certainty of protection to truly be effective...It's understandable that people often talk about European missile defense as one of the ways in which to deal with the missile threat posed by Iran. Or that someday missile defense could provide insurance for nuclear disarmament--this is the vision that Ronald Reagan had. When framed in this way, missile defense seems like a promising way out of difficult situations. But this promise is false. If a real confrontation ever comes about (and let's hope it never happens), we quickly would find out that missile defense offers no meaningful protection whatsoever".

Now the Obama administration has decided to scrap the unworkable shield and has decided to replace it with a much more realistic defense against short-range missiles. I cannot imagine how gratified this must make the scores of scientists, engineers and policy officials who have long argued against the feasibility of the shield. It also signals a huge shift in Bush-era foreign policy. Notice how the administration has diplomatically and shrewdly avoided mentioning the basic failures of the earlier system.

Unfortunately, the sordid history of missile defense and the inherent satisfaction that seems to stem by arguing in favor of a "shield" to protect the population makes me skeptical in believing that the concept is dead forever. But for now, there is peace in our time and this is a significant breakthrough.


Past posts on missile defense:
Made For Each Other
Missile Defense: The Eternal Bug
Holes in the Whole Enterprise
Czechs halt missile shield progress

Czechs halt missile shield progress

Finally, some promising development on this front. I have talked about the futility of missile defense several times before. In a nutshell, the only time an ICBM can truly fruitfully be intercepted is in midcourse, when it is descending to earth above the atmosphere. At this point it is being guided only by gravity, and it can release thousands of simple decoys from which it will be essentially indistinguishable for an incoming warhead. Several scientists over the last three decades have written articles arguing this point (read the excellent article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), and yet missile defense stubbornly refuses to leave the minds of US presidents.

Plus, the underpinnings of missile defense totally miss the point and indicate vastly misplaced priorities. What in the name of Wotan is the possibility that N. Korea or Iran would attack the US with ICBMs and risk being reduced to dust? What on the other hand are the chances of someone slipping a small WMD through the incompletely guarded ports in the US? And what are the chances of alienating Russia by erecting such a shield a stone's throw away from Russian territory?

The former administration did not believe in the laws of physics, nor in the laws of human nature. Seems this one does.

A breath of fresh air

When was the last time a US President stood before Congress and talked with such captivating eloquence, reason and idealism grounded in reality for 52 minutes? How effortlessly, elegantly and modestly the words flowed. This could well have been a State of the Union address.

It truly felt like tinkling music to my ears. It was like listening to a perfectly rendered version of Mozart's "Linz" after 8 years of constantly listening to a badly mangled Marilyn Manson album while being incarcerated in a dark box. It was like going to the world's most luxurious and pristine spa and cleansing your system with nectar after 8 years of living in the gutter and eating lard. The English language was finally resurrected yesterday in Congress.

Now let's just hope he can walk the talk.

AND NOW, FROM MIT...

"Voting analysis shows Obama won because of his support among blacks"

This was the conclusion of a recent MIT study that analyzed Obama's win. In other news, pandas have shown a willingness to eat bamboo shoots.

Does anyone else get the feeling that supposedly high-profile research sometimes reveals facets of life that are intuitively obvious?

But jokes aside, the research has a point. Many people behaved as if racial barriers were finally shattered and that race relations were now officially over. While people's joy and hope was palpable and understandable and while this has indeed been a very important election, history does not really care for exaggeration. I personally never believed that Obama truly transcended race in the minds of many. In fact, as accomplished as he is, I think that he won as much because of the utter incompetence of the other side as because of anything else. Would he have won if he had been running against Ronald Reagan? I don't think so. We are not old enough yet for that to have happened.

BARACK"S MOMENT

I just finished listening to Obama's inaugural speech (text). I didn't think that the speech was particularly more inspiring than some of his other speeches, but given the fact that the average Obama speech is already very inspiring and eloquent, it does not really matter. It was excellent and was definitely one of his best. And I have to say I have heard very few speeches which encompassed so many issues comprehensively and succinctly in 15 minutes. He talked about everything; science, reaching out to poor and hostile countries, shoring up the economy, sustaining both freedom and security without having to sacrifice one for another, fighting climate change and nuclear proliferation, becoming independent in energy, getting the minimal necessary aid provided by government, and welcoming outsiders wanting to live the American dream.

And even though Obama has been inspired by Abraham Lincoln and has alluded to him several times, he deemed it fit to quote the firebrand of the American Revolution Thomas Paine in the end:

"Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it"

I AM FROM THE GOVERNMENT

And I am here to help...this time for real

The dreaded government official might now be necessary to buttress a crucial factor in the energy crisis- nuclear power. In a sad bit of collateral damage, it seems the global financial crisis might stem the growth of nuclear power- never too encouraging and strong to begin with- throughout the world and especially the US. As a Nature article reports:

The growing difficulties in attracting investment may prevent nuclear power from playing a significant role in the fight against climate change. A global energy outlook published on 12 November by the International Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization that guides energy policy, called for an 80% increase in the world’s current nuclear capacity by 2030 in order to keep global carbon dioxide levels from rising above 450 parts per million. That would require bringing some 25 new reactors online every year between now and 2030, five times the current rate of construction, according to Matthew Bunn, a nuclear-policy expert at Harvard University. Given the bleak financial outlook and the limited production capabilities of power-plant vendors, “nuclear can no longer support climate-change needs and targets”, he says.

This is particularly sad given the new nuclear power plant designs that are based on higher efficiency, safety, economy and better proliferation resistance. Britain has for example decided to wisely double its nuclear power capacity with the goal of meeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases. But the financial meltdown has made some wary of this target.

The way I see this, it's pretty clear that some major policy initiatives will have to be axed because of the financial crisis. However, the credit crunch should clearly affect government funding initiatives less than private funding ones. For example, in China nuclear power generation is slated to be quadrupled through government spending, and this won't be affected as much.

Thus, with government funding for nuclear now becoming crucial, the real question is which policy initiatives the government should ax, if any. It would a very big folly as I see it to stifle nuclear and fund renewables instead. In fact what I fear is that because of the poor public perception of nuclear, private investors as well as the government might actually come forward and fund renewables, thus propelling the country and the world down a path that would not promise any significant returns in the crucial next decade for mitigating climate change and providing higher energy density. After that it might be too late.

To me the solution looks simple, even if non-trivial to implement; if the government pot of money is small but the private pot of money is smaller, the government needs to prioritized its spending, make sure that nuclear gets its fair share of investment. It's up to the government now who can really help. This would be a pretty good test for the energy policy of the Obama administration. That should make the choice of energy secretary even more important and anticipated.

TAPPING THE PHONE LINES: NON NSA STYLE

As part of the election, I did something which I had not really planned for; I made 30 phone calls to voters on behalf of Barack Obama's campaign. I did this pretty much on impulse and in spite of not being a US citizen. But I also think that there was a genuine reason behind it. Perhaps that reason points to how important we felt this election was not just for the country but for the world. It indicates how much each of us were fed up with bullying, cronyism and irrationality, and how all of us wanted a breath of fresh rationality, honesty and compassion in the national and international dialogues of our times. Perhaps it especially demonstrated how those of us who have come to these shores with a certain image of the US in our mind wanted to resurrect that image after we were sorely disappointed with how badly that image was tarnished.

I started with registering on barackobama.com and noting my address. After that it was really simple. They gave me a list of tasks I could do, such as driving people who cannot drive to the polls. Since it was a little late for that, I thought I would do the next thing on the list which was really easy: call people. Call them to make sure they have voted. If they have, ask them if they considered supporting Obama. If they have not, ask them when they plan to vote. And ask them if they will strongly consider supporting Obama. If nobody is home, leave a message with the above questions and comments. If the phone number is not working, note this fact on the website. That was really it.

I had an interesting experience overall. Most of the times I either talked to people who have already voted, or left a message. In some cases I left a message with another member of the household. As I made one call after another, I understood the value of doing this. I realise that sometimes when people are sitting on the fence, a simple phone call from a campaign (and a lack of one from the other) can possibly change their minds. I guess that's what all the talk about grassroots efforts is about.

My last phone call was the most interesting of all, when I had to accomplish the difficult task of convincing someone to vote for Obama. I reached a 88 year old voter in Ohio. This man had lived through the Depression and the War. He probably was fed up with both political parties. Before I could say anything, he asked me to recite the first 7 words in the Declaration of Independence. I was completely caught unawares and hesitatingly began with the words "We the people" before quickly embarrassing myself and realizing that that was the Constitution. I had another chance to salvage my dignity, but then I realized that the most famous words of the Declaration, the whole part about all men being created equal which I did know, could not possibly be the beginning. Nevertheless I mumbled those words and got another reprimand from him. Finally he decided to give this anonymous Obama supporter (with an accent!) a last chance and asked me who wrote it. I said Jefferson and thereby barely managed to save the last shreds of my dignity. But then it got interesting. Somewhat bitterly, he asked me why he should support Obama if I did not know the Declaration. To which I falteringly answered that while I profusely apologized for my ignorance, I did know what the document stands for and I thought that its implications and ideals were more important than its exact wording. That seemed to satisfy him. I breathed a sigh of relief and wiped my brow before thanking him and hanging up, although it turned out at the end that he had already voted "at high noon" and this was probably a "test". Later I asked many of my American friends the same question, and all of them except one or two ended up citing the same lines from the Declaration or Constitution as I did. I guess they are as ignorant about Obama and what he stands for as I am!

So I had an interesting experience. But I also realized the power of grassroots efforts and the medium of the Internet. If I could so easily place 30 phone calls and out of those 30 voters if I could convince even 2 to vote, imagine what it would be for hundreds of thousands of such people around the country to constantly make phone calls days on end and talk to voters.

It may sound strange and perhaps even unpatriotic that I who have never voted in India am now contributing to a drive to garner votes in a country where I am not a citizen. In fact not voting in India when I had one chance to do it is something that I count as a failure in my life and, although I had my reasons, I feel ashamed of not doing it. In my flimsy defense, I was blissfully uninterested in politics when I was in India. This was mainly because I was too cynical about it and also because I was too interested in science and music to find time for it. My protests against politics had a ring of truth to them; what's the point of voting if all of these people are going to mess up the country anyway? But it was later that I realized that even if my disillusionment with the national political scene made sense, by not voting I was not exercising the most crucial right I have in my country, and ironically by not doing this I was not helping to improve the same situation that I had been deploring for so long. More importantly, even if none of them were good, someone has got to be better than the previous one. He doesn't need to be a paragon, he simply needs to be better than the previous one and that should be reason enough to vote for him or her.

I resent the fact that I did not vote or do such simple volunteering in India. If I am back in India at some point and can do it, I surely will. But in spite of being an outsider, I am glad I did this here on Tuesday. Perhaps it was the scientist in me that encouraged me to do this for a man who respects scientific inquiry more than many of his predecessors. It was my shout out not just to Obama but more importantly to rationality, a virtue without national boundaries.

HISTORY



Image: New York Times

Till I was about 13 or 14 years old, my readings of American history consisted only of offerings from the history of the United States during World War 2, an old and enduring historical interest of mine. It was when I picked up Harold Evans's The American Century, a superb and magisterial illustrated history of the country during the twentieth century, that I became painfully and woefully aware of the injustice that African-Americans faced in this country for two hundred years. I was horrified to read about Jim Crow, the dog squads and water hoses on the streets of Montgomery, Alabama, the lynchings in Mississippi. As a boy who was about the same age then, I was especially sickened and completely shaken by the relatively recent story of Emmet Till, a story that has been vividly seared into my mind ever since.

I could not believe that this was the country enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the land which first and foremost looked at the integrity of one's character and his or her abilities and not where he or she came from. And yet I saw hope and fundamental human decency in Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. But since then, I have often felt whether any event or moment in the United States could possibly mentally transport me to a pre-Harold Evans time when I had a singularly auspicious and pristine perception of this country. Such a moment would never come because one cannot erase the scars inflicted on this country's character for two hundred years. But I feel convinced that if there would be a moment closest to such a moment in my life, that moment would be yesterday night.

At midnight, I stood on the 15th floor of the Hyatt Regency Hotel and amid the car horns constantly blaring on the street downstairs, I strained my ears to catch every word that he spoke on the TV screen. The overriding feeling among everyone around me was one of peace and relief and tears even more than elation.

He looked tired, relieved and happy but not jubilant. He knows the difficult task that lies ahead and knows that celebration right now is premature. He knows that there's much to be done and that this is just the beginning. He knows that he may not be able to bring about a sea change in the way things have been done. But he knows that he will nudge the country in the right direction by valuing and fostering rationality and honest debate. He knows he will be upfront and forthright about what he thinks and he understands the value of the journey, even if the final destination may not be known. He understands the value of incremental progress.

And he knows that his extraordinary story culminating in yesterday's night healed at least some of the internal divisions among his own people and will go a long way in reviving his country's image in the world as the land of opportunity, diversity and respect.

He did it. Now we have to do it. Now we can get back to our lives.

SAVE SCIENCE ON TUESDAY

It was Richard Nixon who got rid of the Presidential Science Advisory Committee during his tenure, which has not been resurrected since. In the 80s, Ronald Reagan embraced the idealistic vision of Star Wars, a pipe dream that did not have a valid scientific basis. In the 90s, Congress got rid of the Office of Technology Assessment which is supposed to provide the country's political leaders with bipartisan scientific advice. Science on the whole in the last twenty five years has been on a downhill path as far as respect for it in political circles has been concerned.

Although George Bush's administration has been the single-largest malefactor of science and all it stands for and in general although Republicans have done more damage to science, all administrations since the 1970s have overall been lax and negligent in supporting science and its essential spirit. As I have written before, the issue goes far beyond the important one of providing funding for basic scientific research. It has to do with trusting unbiased advice that tries to give you a picture of the world as it is, and not how you would like to see it. It has to do with promoting and respecting open-mindedness and true bipartisan debate. Thus science has always stood opposite dogma, a fact that is usually hard to swallow for most politicians who would want to color the world with their own ideological brush. This is a wholly fatalistic attitude because a disrespect for science means an abandonment of informed decision making, eventually a sure path for a country's spiral into regress.

Barack Obama is not good for science because he is a liberal Democrat. He is good for science because he largely stands for all that science traditionally has; open minds, patient and careful thought, forthcomingness and respect in listening to dissenting opinions, a mistrust of blind reliance on authority and a willingness to listen to all sides of the debate before taking an informed decision. Obama also knows he is not perfect and embodies another key aspect of science; the ability to understand one's deficiencies and limitations and seek the best possible advice to overcome them. There is scarce doubt that he will bring knowledgeable science advisors into the White House and that he will take seriously the advice of people with whom he may not agree. At the same time he will weigh all the options and sides and try to take as unbiased a decision as he can. In an age of climate change, evolution, food crises, energy crises, drug resistance and nuclear terrorism, science is going to become an increasingly key and vocal part of the national debate and the future of this country. Obama understands this. Maybe that's why, a few days ago, 76 Nobel Prize winners represented by the great physicist Murray Gell-Mann wrote an open letter to the American people and endorsed Obama as most prudent for science in this country.



The American people need to reclaim their lost preeminence in science and technology and their respect for learning and rationality. They need to reaffirm their place in the world as the land where open minds meet unlimited resources and intellectual capital. The time has come when this land needs to save science from itself. With this in view, anyone who deeply cares about science, reason and objective thought should vote for Barack Obama on Tuesday.

MICHELLE OBAMA ON THE DAILY SHOW



What strikes me is how normal this woman and her husband both seem. It's always seemed surprising to me how Americans have thought of Bush as someone who is "just like them" and someone who they would like to have a beer with. If I were asked this question, Barack and Michelle Obama easily look like they could be my next door neighbors; friendly and reasonable people with whom I could have dinner, have intelligent and serious conversations about the world, and who would be sensitive to the concerns of people and society and more than willing to entertain differing points of view. Bush as a neighbor would seem vindictive, stubborn, fawning when it suits him, and shallow and superficial in judging other people.

It's simple. I would not want to have a beer with him, because he would not want to have a beer with me. And that's the essential difference between the Bushes and the Obamas.

CURTAINS?

From the debate yesterday, I get the feeling that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are set for a clear victory. McCain had one shot to redeem himself in the debate and he blew it. His campaign clearly is sounding more desperate every day, especially with the sleazy and incompetent joke Palin digging up and trotting out flimsy past association charges at Obama. When short on substance and devoid of hope, attack character. While that's standard issue strategy for all politicians, you know that things are getting desperate when that strategy starts to be put on display so proudly. All McCain can do now as was apparent yesterday is appear condescending and repeatedly say "my friends" as if that's some kind of a hypnotic suggestion like "your eyelids are getting heavier"; he expects that the phrase will zap people and brainwash them into taking him seriously.

Yesterday's debate also underscored an observation that I think is key which I noticed in the last debate; independent voters are consistently leaning towards Obama. The voter response lines for independent voters at the bottom of the screen (and Ohio independents no less) are not perfect predictors, but they clearly showed that independents are not impressed with John McCain even in his best moments now. Any theater director will tell you that his delivery is falling flat. To independents, his best moments are rightly and finally sounding like typical political boilerplate.

As the BBC says, Barack Obama is now emerging as a boxer who simply needs to dance around the ring and maybe knock a punch or two. Many people now clearly are condemning the McCain-Palin smear campaign and most of their supposedly rousing statements are falling flat on their face. All Obama needs to do now is to wait for a month and hopefully watch the McCain campaign implode. That does not mean he has to sit back and relax, but what he has to do is mainly let them keep on shooting themselves in the foot, which seems to be their essential quality.

We can all dream on that the Obama-McCain election's results will mirror the results of the Reagan-Mondale election, only in reverse. Let's hope that McCain carries Arizona.

WHAT WE WILL DO

I was discussing the candidates, politics and the future intensely with a friend of mine yesterday and we asked each other what we would do if either McCain or Obama wins.

If McCain wins, I will buy a big bottle of premium scotch, amble over to my friend's place and then both of us will drink ourselves to sleep without saying a word. After that I have pledged that I will lose all interest in politics, cease talking about it and get along with the parts of my life over which I exercise at least a little control.

If Obama wins, we won't really celebrate, because it's going to be premature. I think if he wins, we should simply breathe a sigh of relief and sit back, then watch.

The point is that the country is so messed up right now that even Obama may not be able to do much. That's why celebration after he wins would be to too soon. We can all hope then that we will get a great chance to celebrate in four years, or hopefully eight.

PLEASE, DON'T STAND IN THE WAY OF THIS MAN

This is as sensible and assertive a statement about evolution that we can expect from a Presidential candidate

Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny.

This is from the latest issue of Nature whose cover story is about the candidates' views on scientific issues, views that are going to be of paramount importance to the future well-being of this country. Nature asked the candidates 18 questions about science and technology, including questions about increasing funding for basic research, speeding up the track to permanent residency for talented foreign students, and pumping more funds into biomedical innovations.

Not suprisingly, McCain's camp declined to answer with specifics and Nature dug up relevant statements from his old speeches that mainly included boilerplate sound-bytes. Obama's camp on the other hand provided rather eloquent and clear answers that actually talk about facts. It's pretty amazing to hear answers that actually are filled with details about science. McCain's cast of "science" advisors looks like a Gilligan's Island outfit and includes HP chief Carly Fiorina (who thinks Sarah Palin is quite competent to be President), James Woolsey, a former CIA director and Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBay. This group seems as miscast for science as Sarah Palin is miscast for being Vice President. Obama's advisors on the other hand include some real scientists, including Dan Kammen from Berkeley and Harold Varmus from Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Obama would speed up the residency process for foreign students, minimize barriers between private and public R & D (this is going to be very important). And Obama is as clear about nuclear energy as anything else

What role does nuclear power have in your vision for the US energy supply, and how would you address the problem of nuclear waste?

Obama: Nuclear power represents an important part of our current energy mix. Nuclear also represents 70% of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed, including security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage and proliferation. The nuclear waste disposal efforts at Yucca Mountain [in Nevada] have been an expensive failure and should be abandoned. I will work with the industry and governors to develop a way to store nuclear waste safely while we pursue long-term solutions.

Most importantly, Obama promises to reform the political environment for scientific opinion; this would include appointing a Chief Technology Officer for the government and strengthening the President's Scientific Advisory Committee, a key source of scientific advice for the President that was abolished by the odious Richard Nixon

Many scientists are bitter about what they see as years of political interference in scientific decisions at federal agencies. What would you do to help restore impartial scientific advice in government?

Obama: Scientific and technological information is of growing importance to a range of issues. I believe such information must
be expert and uncoloured by ideology. I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability and participation for America’s citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views. I have already established an impressive team of science advisers, including several Nobel laureates, who are helping me to shape a robust science agenda for my
administration.

This point is the most encouraging policy vision, after a 8 year tradition of bullying, manipulating, cherry picking, ignoring and roughing up science and objective facts. The cost of scientific ignorance will be progress in all its forms.

Reading this is like being immersed inside a gutter for all your life and suddenly coming up for fresh air in the bright sunlight with a gasp. This man deserves to lead this country. This country deserves to be led by this man.

JOE BIDEN

Good choice for a VP. His foreign policy experience will be very valuable to a President. I just think he would have been even more useful in a proactive role such as Secretary of State. Not to mention that it would be an orders of magnitude improvement on the current one.

MCCAIN ON THE RIGHT ENERGY PATH

I have always liked John McCain, even before he was running for President. Maybe it was just the feeling that he is among the few old-school Barry Goldwater Republicans still around. Unfortunately I still wouldn't vote for him if I could, mainly because I think it's high time that this country stepped out from the shadows of the current neoconservative republicanism, which McCain can do little to swiftly quell. The problem is that even if McCain is fairly moderate, he may be forced to pander to a very conservative voter base and thus end up enforcing right-wing policies. As just one example, I have no doubt that he will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v Wade in a heartbeat, or at least hand over decisions over abortion to states, which will still be pretty much the same thing. Any such policy threatens to divide an already-bitter populace.

However, my respect cannot help but increase for the man when it comes to energy policy. McCain has often spoken of reducing energy dependence, and now he seems to seriously plan on doing something about it. I was extremely gratified when he spoke of constructing 45 new nuclear reactors till 2030 to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and reduce foreign oil dependence. He said,

"Across Europe there are 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. And if all of these nations can find a way to carry out great goals in energy policy, then I assure you that the United States is more than equal to the challenge"

At last, a Republican who praises France for a change. It should be noted that no new nuclear reactor has been constructed in the country since the 1970s, and the greatest cost in commissioning new reactors still resides in their extremely long licensing times. Nuclear power, by the way, is not heavily subsidized, no matter what the environmentalists say.

Almost no Democrat I know, including Al Gore and unfortunately also Obama, has volubly spoken in favor of nuclear power or has demonstrated strong leanings towards alternative energy (except renewables, and we all know the problems with those). Now McCain has also announced a 300 million $ prize for a battery of the future that would be environment-friendly and highly efficient. He said

"In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success," McCain said in a speech at Fresno State University."

It is heartening to know that McCain is thinking in the right direction. On the other hand, his policies and rhetoric about Iran are highly misguided. He should understand that if enough attention is paid to energy and nuclear power, Iranian oil would not be a necessity. Leave Iran alone. Focus on energy policy at home. It's good to see that he is at least partly doing that. Meanwhile I am still waiting for Obama to endorse nuclear power.

SPACE: THE VIOLENT FRONTIER?

A couple of days ago, the US quite ostensibly sent up a missile to blow up a "rogue" satellite. China had also done the same thing a year or so ago. These actions seem like ominous preludes to a possible arms race in space, the last thing the world wants.

In the latest issue of Pragati, Adityanjee has an article that exhorts India to develop its own ASAT (anti-satellite) system in response to these actions by the US and China. While developing such a system might be good insurance and a future bargaining chip, the first and most important thing we all need to do is keeping pushing for an international treaty to ban weapons in space. Not only will a failure to do this lead to a possible new Cold War, but it can also render space inhospitable for peaceful technologies, an event that will be disastrous for countries that currently use satellites for weather forecasting and precipitation for example.

Mike Moore, who is a previous editor of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has written a new book on the history and current status of attempts by the US to weaponise and militarise space. As in many other cases, the US- no friend of treaties for quite some time now- is unique in having vetoed and blocked attempts to forge international treaties to ban weapons in space. This is probably not too surprising considering the attempts by the US since the 19060s (when they were developing a purported system to oust Chinese ballistic missiles) to the 1980s (age of the infamous Star Wars) to the 2000s (the Bush administration's obsession with National Missile Defense). True to other traditions, the US has constantly underscored its sovereign right to exceptionalism when the rest of the world thinks otherwise. The US satellite blowup comes close on the heels of renewed efforts of China and Russia to push for an international treaty to ban space weapons.

In his book, Moore documents how President Eisenhower made spirited efforts to stop an arms race in space. However, every administration since the Reagan administration has vetoed attempts by other space-faring countries to negotiate such treaties. The Pentagon's love affair with GPS-guided precision weapons in the 90s fueled ambitions to weaponise space. Again, it's the US that is leading the world into a dangerous era and is interested in unilaterally pursuing belligerent aims. It seems to be still living in Cold War mode. As Moore says, China and Russia (and presumably India) have many more important problems to tackle and spend money on than building a space weapons capability. However, they can, and will, build this capability if they see the US constantly trying to do so.

The US in fact has a golden opportunity right now to preserve its superiority in weapons technology. The situation reminds me of the early days of the arms race, when an exceptional opportunity to preserve the US superiority over Russia in nuclear arms was lost because of politicking by right wing hawks and threat inflation specialists. After that, Russia soon caught up and it was too late. Similarly, now is the time for the US to talk to other nations and sign a space-weapons ban, thus preserving and possibly sealing its current technological advantage.

One of the central points of missile defense that I have often made in other posts, is that it is almost assuredly going to fail against ballistic missiles, a point which should have been emphasized in the Pragati article. This points needs to be constantly emphasized because like some annoying virus, it keeps infecting and enamoring the minds of US and world officials in every successive administration, in spite of its proven lack of feasibility. Shooting down ballistic missiles realistically has always been a pipe dream harboured by zealous government officials, and the fallibility of this has been demonstrated time and time again by distinguished scientists and other officials. Any attempt to build an anti-ballistic missile system is a huge waste of money, time and talent, and as an added insidious side-effect, it breeds hostility in other nations, something that has already happened because of the US National Missile Defense system. Missile defense should rankle the hearts of democracy and peace-lovers, libertarians and economic conservatives.

Shooting down satellites is another matter, and unfortunately easier than shooting down ballistic missiles. But as Moore points out in his book, one of the many effects of such an exchange will be an amplification of debris in low-earth orbit, debris that will likely make it impossible to use satellites for peaceful purposes, including missions to other planets in the solar system. And of course, it will add perhaps irreversibly to the hubris-laden image that the US has in the world right now.

Every attempt should be made by all space-faring countries to push for an international treaty banning any kind of weapons in space. But sadly, it's the US again that is posing the biggest impediment to the forging of such a consensus. The next President should make it a priority to sign such a treaty, and Obama has indicated that he might be interested. Any attempt by the US to develop a space weapons capability will lead to a dangerous arms race with Russia, China, India and others, involving huge expenditures and wasted efforts. It will contribute to an already deeply dividing feeling of international resentment and animosity. But perhaps most importantly, it will send out a signal that space, that ultimate refuge that is supposed to be the equal sovereign right of every human being on the planet, can be belligerently conquered and manipulated by a few nations. After that, everything will be up for grabs.

THE ECONOMIST ON OBAMA- CAN HE SAVE THEM SOON ENOUGH?

The Economist has two perceptive articles about Obama:

"With the brief exception of those four heady days after the Iowa caucuses, he has never been a front-runner; now he will be more fully scrutinised. The immediate focus will be on the horse race: can he win? But the bigger issue, which has so far occupied too little attention, is this: what would a President Obama, as opposed to Phenomenon Obama, really mean for America and the world?"

To be honest, the articles are more about Hilary, because she is the one who should be really worried now. March 4 might be her turning point when Texas and Ohio vote, or it could be "Billarygate", after which even the superdelegates probably will not be able to save her. In addition, the Democrats likely already know that having a Obama vs McCain race might be much more to their advantage than a Hilary vs McCain race.

And yet as the articles contend, Obama has some way to go before he assuages voters about his lack of experience and assures them that he is going to be tough and efficient about Iraq and the economy. As far as Iraq is concerned, Thomas Friedman accurately said that the "only choices are between bad and worse", and so Obama might run the risk of simply improving the situation from worse to bad- a notable achievement without a doubt but yet one that will give his opponents plenty of opportunity to vilify him. As for the economy, it's hard to say. Economics may not (and often does not) bow to politics and deliberate actions and sometimes no number of bills and policies can save the economy soon enough.

Actually it won't be surprising if Democrats win the race. If we look at the last 80 years or so of American history, it's quite clear that another party was chosen when one party made a mess, and the mess this party has made exceeds almost all the other messes. Let's see: Hoover failed to rescue the country economically, so people chose FDR who brought the country out of The Depression. Truman and Eisenhower both completed their terms, but Eisenhower won against Adlai Stevenson because he appeared tough on the Soviets. Nixon cast a blemish on the presidency, and Democrats were elected once again. Carter got embroiled in the Iran hostage crises farce, and everybody got so upset that they elected an actor. The actor endured because of rhetoric that for better or worse went down well with people. His successor George Bush again lost to Clinton after the fall of communism. And we know the depressing rest.

So it won't be surprising, only relieving, if the Democrats and Obama for that matter get elected. The only question is; with the current state of affairs and the twisted situation in which the Republicans have entrenched the nation, will the new President be able to do something soon enough? Time is of the essence here, not just political brilliance and prudent actions.

OBAMA WINS MORE

Looks like Obama is now truly neck to neck with Hilary and might be set to get the nomination. Even if Hilary thinks she can win in Texas, I think it just might be possible for the Clinton-haters in Texas to vote for Obama. It would be a great day for this country and the world if he wins and a historic one if he becomes President. That said, I think a Obama vs McCain fight is going to be close and not easy. It might have been much easier with Romney vs Obama. McCain does carry the weight of experience. In addition, he might put off some conservatives, but it is possible that he can swing the minds of people on the fence with some of his moderate stances.

On the other hand, one must acknowledge that there are many Democrats who would not have voted for Hilary but who say they would vote for Obama. Then are also those somewhat muddle-headed people who would vote for Hilary by default because she is a woman. One of the most hilarious viewpoints I read came from a voter who said she would not vote for Obama because she does not like his "Muslim roots". Anyway, in general, it does seem that it would be much better and safer for the Democrats to have Obama as the nominee, to appease those Democratic voters who would not vote for Hilary (and who might even vote for McCain in a Hilary-McCain race).

In any case, I cannot help but think that this is one of the few elections in American history in which people all around the world are almost as interested and anxious about the results as the average American voter. That's because not only has Bush immensely harmed this country, but by trampling international laws, treaties, conventions and sentiments under his foot, he has also significantly harmed the world. The world needs Barack Obama as much as America does.