Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!space
From: MCGRATH@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU ("Jim McGrath")
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: L-5 Society
Message-ID: <12172162896.15.MCGRATH@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 21:47:47 EST
Article-I.D.: OZ.12172162896.15.MCGRATH
Posted: Thu Jan  2 21:47:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jan-86 08:21:44 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 31



I am also a life member of the L-5 Society, although I am not actively
involved in any of the chapters.  My major contact with the Society
has been through the L-5 News and periodic mailgrams concerning
specific lobbying efforts on the behalf of NASA.

From my limited exposure I feel that the L-5 Society is NOT supporting
SDI as much as it should be, given that it may be the only politically
feasible way to realize the Society's goals.  The Society is strictly
neutral, and much of the comments in the News from members is
anti-SDI.  Thus I simply cannot understand why anyone would possibly
resign from the Society for its PRO-SDI bias.

Perhaps the problem is that the American public supports SDI
(depending upon the poll and the time, anywhere from 50% to 70%
consider it an excellent of good program, as opposed to a fair or a
poor one).  Thus it is quite possible that a majority of the
membership of the Society does support it - clearly it would be
statistically odd if a substantial minority did not do so.

Moreover, I get the distinct impression that there has been
substantial polarization on this topic.  Thus, to an anti-SDI person,
the fact that the Society "tolerates" pro-SDI talk is taken as a sign
of support for SDI.  The Society is simply allowing its members to
freely express themselves on perhaps the most important program
involving space since Apollo.


Jim
-------