How can a supposedly intelligent person take seriously a columnist who attempts to trash one of the few fairly reliable news sources in the country by referring to it as a "sink of unexamined squishy knee-jerk liberalism," characterizing it as "limp-wristed, angsty self-loathing," and other such appeals to the emotions of those who use their viscera to think with rather than their brains? The reason NPR is disliked by the Radical Right is that they have the nasty tendency to report stories that said RR would rather people not know. NPR's main failing, in the view of the RR, is that they are not wholeheartedly on board the Bush administration's bandwagon the way most of the other news services are. Unlike the other news services, NPR doesn't do commercials for the Bush administration, or anyone else, for that matter. They report the news, in considerable depth. But that much detail is a little too much for the kind of mind that can only manage to get itself around bumper-sticker style sound-bites.

Steinberg refers to social programs such as Social Security as "keeping its enormous senior population in Metamucil" In fact, he mentions Metamucil a couple of times. Seems he's hung up on the idea. Then he comments about the possibility of eventually "elbow[ing] my way toward the Social Security trough." Good objective expression, that:   "Social Security trough!"

It's pretty clear that he has nothing but contempt for those on Social Security (which, incidentally, includes every American citizen over the age of 65). There are millions of people in this country who, through no fault of their own, depend on what Steinberg characterizes as a "trough" to keep them from having to sleep under a bridge or eat out of Dumpsters. The fact is that these people have paid into the Social Security program all their working lives and, like paying insurance premiums, have the right to expect the return they were promised. That is a moral obligation on the part of the government. But apparently Mr. Steinberg believes that since many elderly or disable folks (equated with pigs at the trough) are no longer able to be as productive as they once were, then—what the hell—they're useless! Toss them into the Dumpster! I don't know how old Steinberg is, but I am reminded of the acne-faced Sixties pundit who said "Never trust anyone over thirty!" On the day that particular twerp turned thirty, the gods had one helluva good laugh!

Steinberg goes on to say, "saying we shouldn't go [to Mars] because we have other problems is naivete itself. Comparing the two, Mars and Social Security, is like asking how you can afford to eat in a restaurant when you've got a mortgage hanging over your head."

Now, there are not many people as in favor of a manned space program as I am. I've been interested in this sort of thing all my life and no one would be more ecstatic at the idea of a manned Mars expedition than me. But Steinberg misses a few minor details here. He says, "if we can land a go-kart there, we can land a person, too." Quite true. If we can land a go-kart on Mars, we could probably dump a corpse there for not much more money. But how about keeping him alive in space for the many months the trip would take, landing him alive, keeping him alive while he's there (Mars ain't exactly Miami Beach), and bringing him back alive?   That could be a bit more pricey than Mr. Steinberg seems to have been willing to go to the effort to work out.

But—Social Security is not the only consideration. Right now, the country is sporting the deepest deficit it has ever had (in only a couple of years, Bush managed to squander the substantial surplus Clinton left), and now Bush wants to spend even more. Instituting a Mars program now is like depleting your savings account, then maxing out a sheaf of credit cards to the point where your children will have to spend years paying off your debt, and then borrowing the money to put a down-payment on a Lamborghini. How naive is that?

But then, that's our president!

Steinberg is an ass.

Don Firth