I have just finished reading about Dan Goldin's speech at the MIT
graduation.
This is what he said: "You will make my dream come true, not in 50 years,
but in the next 10 to 20,". Apparently the statement was met with great
applause.
He made a reference to how a person in a spacesuit's would climb down a
latter and 'her' boot would make a crunching noise as it touched the ground.
I am very enthusiastic about the idea of a woman touching the ground first
at Mars, I would not have it any other way, but I would rather that this
women be followed by 9,999 other people just like me, ordinary space
citizens, and for this to happen 50 or even 100 years from now (even if I
could live forever I would have no intentions of going to mars, except of
course to ski mons olympus, but lets say I did.) Dan Goldin would like to
see this women followed by perhaps 5-10 other 'astronauts', and for this to
happen in only 20 years: monopolizing global space resources for these very
patriotic and selective few.
People seem to enthusiastically support such ideas because they cannot see
any other options: go to mars or do nothing. People who I have talked to do
not even understand why I would believe in such things as space colonies, as
if I was talking about the moon missions being faked because the Klingons
have a base on the far side of the moon! They ask ignorant questions before
I can say the bitat in 'Space Habitat' my favorite being 'but wouldn't it
just be easier to terraform another planet'. Call me ignorant, but I don't
see how planets that are naturally hostile to life (supposedly) could ever
maintain a stable ecosystem before crashing every 500 years!
I know this is all old news, but I get so worked up when I read about these
things. If I ever needed to play a grumpy old man in a movie I would just
have to LOOK at a picture of Dan Goldin (I'm sure he's a nice guy)! Again I
apologize to this list.

People seem to enthusiastically support such ideas because they cannot see
any other options: go to mars or do nothing. I consider this the major problem we High Frontier types face when advocating our positions to other space enthusiasts. They ask ignorant questions before
I can say the bitat in 'Space Habitat' my favorite being 'but wouldn't it
just be easier to terraform another planet'. I've run into this same curious reversal of logic myself. One person I debated on a space newsgroup expressed the opinion that the O'Neill plan simply represented a lot of "unnecessary moving around of materials and wasting of energy, when you could instead just tweak a planet until it's just right." I expressed the opinion that "tweaking a planet" was a feat worthy of the Magratheans. People seem to feel that a preexisting planet somehow meets you halfway to your goal in a way that I don't feel is logically supportable. What it boils downs to is which is more difficult: building the equivalent of a small South Seas island from below the ground up, or totally reengineering the atmosphere and surface of an entire planet? I know which is going to be easier, but many don't see it that way. Call me ignorant, but I don't
see how planets that are naturally hostile to life (supposedly) could ever
maintain a stable ecosystem before crashing every 500 years! One of the arguments I got was that space habitats will require ongoing maintenance, while planets will not. I allowed that that was certainly the case for Earth, but like you, doubted that a terraformed planet would be maintenance-free.

I read an article on this too.

One thing I noticed recently is that the press coverage of the NEAR
Shoemaker mission was pretty abysmal. Each week that Atlanta newspapers
have some article or another on the Shuttle or ISS, but only thrice did I
see anything in the local paper concerning NEAR Shoemaker. The NEAR
Shoemaker project was a complete success, exceeding expectations despite a
harrowing beginning, and it did all this on a small budget ($223 million,
soup to nuts). NEAR Shoemaker was a whole lot closer to the type of
project that will open up the High Frontier than are ISS or the Shuttle,
but the press coverage of NEAR Shoemaker was a small fraction of these
other projects. NASA plays no small part in determining what appears in
local newspapers through the process of press releases, press conferences,
etc.

Some good news is out there... Mars Express will take pictures of Phobos;
c.f., http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=5104.

If I ever needed to play a grumpy old man in a movie I
would just have to LOOK at a picture of Dan Goldin (I'm
sure he's a nice guy)!