…if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

According to the AP’s very own stylebook, the proper word for this situation is “forgo,” which means to abstain, not “forego,” which means to go before. The way the sentence is written now suggests that if the cost of killing becomes too high, people will simply kill sooner. This totally mangles the author’s true meaning and commits what Henry Higgins called “the cold-blooded murder of the English tongue.”

Perhaps the death penalty should be extended to those who butcher their language.

Politics is a blood sport, where competitors exchange blows in the form of negative ads. Unfortunately it is the spectators who end up taking the hits. I’ve written before about how attack ads embitter the electorate, and I’ve found some fresh insights from Shanto Iyengar, one of the authors of Going Negative, and Joe Klein, the author of Politics Lost.

Iyengar found ample evidence that negative ads alienate voters, especially moderate ones. While I blamed this choice of strategy mostly on the Machiavellian nature of politics, Iyengar attributed it more to the media. Klein echoed Iyengar’s sentiment when he wrote about how political consultants bully their candidates into spouting vapid, market-tested messages that appeal to the press more than the public.

Regardless of why politicians rely on scripted sound bites and vicious attack ads, both authors agree these tactics weaken people’s interest in politics. Considering that the main goal of the media is to attract attention, news organizations would be wise to change the way they cover campaigns. Otherwise the horse race will finish us all.

Earlier this year I wrote to the White House and urged the administration to reconsider its priorities. While there are many policies I could have complained about, I chose to criticize the space program. I specifically disapproved of President Bush’s proposal for a manned-mission to Mars, because it squandered funding for other vital projects like satellite surveillance (the gist of my complaint can be found here).

Turns out that I’m in good company. I just finished reading Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan’s 1994 sequel to his bestseller Cosmos, and was surprised to find that one of the foremost advocates of space exploration actually agreed with me.

It’s not enough to go to Mars because some of us have dreamt of doing so since childhood, or because it seems to us the obvious long-term exploratory goal for the human species. If we’re talking about spending this much money, we must justify the expense.

Sagan said the “witches’ brew of cancers, homelessness, malnutrition, infant mortality” and all the other problems here on earth demand our immediate attention. He warned that the cost of a Mars mission could shortchange solutions to Earth’s troubles, and said, “Surely there is some point at which the national economy is in such dire straits that sending people to Mars is unconscionable.”

Sagan also enumerated on the benefits of space exploration, such as discovering rare materials or creating new technology. He conceded that none of them is sufficient to justify the expense, at least not individually. But if we forged international partnerships to help defray the costs, we could make the journey without breaking the bank. He went on to passionately describe how exploration is a part of our heritage, and how it will also shape our destiny.

I agree with Sagan that our expansion is necessary. Like it or not, the earth will eventually be incinerated by the sun (if it hasn’t already been destroyed by a cosmic collision or nuclear war). So spreading out across the solar system and the stars beyond is essential to our survival, but I would argue that now is not the time.

In the meantime, Sagan made an excellent suggestion about the best way to prepare for manned spaceflight. “The most important step we can take towards Mars is to make significant progress on Earth.”