Ciao!

Hi Miguel
I love your blog in general, but I strongly disagree here. I think Bush's Mars ambitions are a trillion-dollar waste of money, and that the shuttles and Hubble telescopes, though less glamorous, are a far greater value relative to the expense, and still need a lot of work.
Keep in mind that the US is now running huge deficits, and that as the Baby Boom begins retiring there is a looming financial crisis.
I am willing to recognize the very very few positive things that Bush has done, but this is most certainly not one of them.
Sounds like yet another distraction from the US's real problems.

Interesting. I have mixed feelings about the recent developments concerning manned space flight. First off, it should be known that I am a proponent of m.s.f. I think it should continue, regardless of what some critics have said.
I also admit that I have not done extensive research into what Bush is proposing, I have only read a handful of articles. So, if anything I say is contrary to popular knowledge, that is due to my own ignorance and I happily retract my statement.

However, m.s.f. at the expense of the Hubble is disheartening. While I agree that part of the human spririt is exploration, and pushing our limits, let us not forget that part of the human spirit is also a thirst for knowledge. I have yet to read anything that would make me believe our going to the moon, or even eventually Mars, will yield the same types of discoveries the Hubble grants us. Yes, the Hubble has had problems, but it is an amazingly powerful observational device. If part of the plan were to also compensate for its loss, then I may be more behind it.

I should probably get back to work now, but I just wanted to put in my opinion on this subject.

Also, did you ever read "Orbiter" Miguel? It deals with exactly what you are talking about in a sci-fi setting (the human spirit of exploration for the sake of exploration)

=Josh

If I remember correctly you’ve been pro Bush for quite some time now. Did you change your mind for a while? I think the man is an idiot and should have never been anywhere near the oval office, but I have to admit some great things have happened over the course of his presidency and it irks me.

I agree that exploration is important, and that without discovery mankind tends to stagnate. I’d like to see men on mars, and I don’t want to scrap the Hubble. I don’t think that anyone wants to cut funding for worthwhile projects, but if we can only afford to do one I think we should stick with the Hubble. We are already involved in one fiasco that we really can’t afford. Bush is like a college freshman with a credit card with no limit. “I can buy anything and everything” but he doesn’t seem to realize that just because you can get anything you want doesn’t mean it’s free, we still have to pay for it. He wants to be a great president, but what he’s doing is immature and selfish. I want to see a man on the red planet too, but I think we should wait till we’ve paid for Iraq.

That’s just my opinion.

Aaron:

Ironically, the US was in a similar position when Kennedy launched the space program back in the 60s. In retrospect, the space program generated many jobs, started entire industries, and produced innovations that are still applied in medicine & other areas. In short, I don't think space exploration is a waste of money. I think it's what we should've done for the last 12 years (Bush 41 & Clinton) and didn't.

Dave:

I support Bush on some issues, yes. That doesn't make me "pro-Bush" (or "anti-Democrat" either). The world's not so black & white. When Bush does something I support, I applaud him (yes, I supported the Iraq war). When he does something I dislike (like the Homeland Security mess), I point it out. I think most liberal bloggers out there are doing the same thing. I've also certainly not made up my mind who to vote for in November. But I won't vote for Dean. I hope to heaven that Lieberman gets the nomination, because he'd get my vote.

Also, your characterization of Bush is nothing but assertions. What makes you think he's more selfish than Clinton? Or Carter? Or Johnson? Or any other president? Why stoop to name-calling? Those kind of attitudes are exactly what turns me off from the current direction of the "American liberal left" (which is really neither liberal nor very American, compared to Kennedy, who was a leftist liberal who still believed in the American dream, not in national self-loathing). Why not put forward a principled argument?

Josh:

I agree, the Hubble could probably do more. But the cost of going up to fix it are more than putting a base on the moon that could do all that Hubble's doing (I believe the moon base would have a telescope, and it would be safer than up in orbit getting hit by flying debris every second). Also, the Hubble's not the only telescope out there, there are (I believe) three others. None of those are scheduled to be scrapped.

Miguel,
This is one of the few things Bush has done that I fully support. He has unleashed the dream of going to Mars and going back to the Moon--these are both necessary things for humans.

People have to realize that when a president gets up and talks about things like space flight--the details are irrelevant. No one remembers the rest of Kennedy's speech, they only remember that JFK said, "Let's put a man on the moon."

It will be the same thing with Bush, no one will remember the details or even the context--they will only remember that this was the first president who stood up and said this should be a priority. So hopefully we will succeed in the challenge laid out by Bush.

As far as the specifics of the program;
1) Hubble's operational life has been extended past the original plans for it, so phasing it out is not really a new proposal it's just stating the reality of that program.
2) This is also partly true with the space shuttle, as we saw with Columbia these vehicles are getting a little too old to fly. Also, the various economies of scale promised by the space shuttle never materialized and this program has been far too expensive.
3) Going back to the moon. This is a great proposal and one I'm very excited about. Although I do have significant misgivings about Bush's idea to mine the moon for rocket fuel--I know Bush likes his energy CEOs, but this plan is highly unrealistic--hopefully by that time we have replaced rocket fuel with something more suited to long-term space exploration.
4) Mars. Rather than having a single country foot the bill and take all the risk--why not open this operation up to the entire world. The Europeans, Russians, Japanese, and now the Chinese would be great partners for such a project. Besides they would help split the cost, because the true cost with space programs is always the proposed cost multiplied by three.

I agree completely. Space exploration should be a joint human endevour. But. Then again. A little healthy competition might spur us.

Let's review some of the recent things Bush has proposed:

$1.5 billion for "marriage counseling"
Mandatory drug testing for high school students
A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage
The renewal of the PATRIOT Act

...and he says he wants to go to the moon again. Great. We can't pay for it because of his administration, which is really too bad. You wrote:

"But if that's all the American left is these days, if that's all it has to offer, if it has no more vision or daring to build anything, if all it is "NO, NO, NO" to everything & cynical negativity, then let them endorse Dean (aka Dr. No), lose an election in a monumental landslide, and then fade off into history. And if so, good riddance. I want a real liberal & progressive alternative, not temper tantrum 5-year-olds."

-- Hardly showing your moderate stripes here, I must say. Where were you when the progressive liberals wanted to study how best to ensure health care coverage for everyone in our country? (Hint: it happened during Clinton's administration) Where were you when the liberals forged an agreement with the rest of humanity to work together at decreasing the Earth's pollution? (Kyoto Protocol) Where were you when the liberals worked to protect our national parklands from exploitation so that we may yet have some untamed natural beauty in our nation? (Clinton, again) Where were you when the liberals ensured that mothers and fathers could take federally-protected time to cherish in the arrival of their newborn without fear of losing their job? (Family Leave Act)

You talk of wishing liberals could have a "vision," yet what vision does the Right have at all? Their vision is a vision of unchecked personal greed, a juvenile vision of limitless exploitation of the earth, a retarded vision of unprovoked aggression, and a bigoted vision of religious idolatry. Yes, that certainly is quite an agenda for dreaming, n'est-ce pas?

Ralph:

Hold your horses. Why do you think I ever opposed any of the things you mentioned? Just because I'm disappointed at the Dean wing of the Democratic Party doesn't make me a Republican, or anything else. So back off and not jump to conclusions. The world's not black or white, it's not "with us or against us" on every single issue.

Let's see. I oppose the Patriot Act. I'm for legalizing gay marriage. I'm for population control. I support environmental protectionism and most of the Kyoto Protocol (as I understand it). I prefer to buy fair trade, organic foods. Hell, I cook vegan (or at least vegetarian). And for the record, I think Clinton was horrible person (as an individual). But I don't care about that. He was a pretty good president (as a statesman), which is what matters.

The danger that the American left I was arguing against poses is that it falls into the same traps Bush does: "you're either w/ us or against us." Well, there are plenty of better bloggers than I out there who oppose Bush on many issues, even if they support (in principle) the war on terror. And for liberal reasons. The war on terror is a war against fascist-minded, religious totalitarians. As a LIBERAL, I'm all for that. Aren't you?

BTW, the tragedy of the American Left "these days" (and those were my EXACT words) is that it really isn't any longer about vision or progressive projects. Here, of course, I mean the loudest part of the American left in the last two years. There's not longer a PROJECT, which means an alternative solution to the practical problems of the world -- especially post-9/11.

Now, Clintonites did breathe new life into the American Left. And there was a project that was, for the most part, quite solid & effective. If Clinton had had less scandals towards the end of his presidency, and if Gore had been more charismatic, Bush wouldn't have won the election. But. After 9/11, many people in the LEFT (myself included) became disillussioned w/ the way the public face of the American Left chose to play partisan politics against Bush, rather than face the realities (as we understood them) of a post-9/11 world.

In short, 9/11 demonstrated that we can't be isolationist (something I never supported, since I'm a human rights internationalist). It also showed that the threat from groups that oppose us FOR OUR LIBERAL PRINCIPLES must be resisted. The parallel to the 1930s is all too clear for me. Pacifism isn't a solution. Bin Laden hates us not because of anything we've done (look at what he says!) but because of who we are: A society that believes in separation of church & state, equal rights for women, freedom of expression, etc.

So. If 9/11 jerked me into realizing that there is a civilizational struggle between those wo support universal human freedoms and those who would crush them, I have to side w/ those who fight the fascists. The fact that the anti-war protest offered no viable alternative solution and (worse!) that it was dominated by anti-Semitic and pro-Stalinist groups made me shudder. When ANSWER, a group that supports Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, and Hussein (since the 1980s!) presents itself as the voice for the American Left -- and the mainstream American Left allows this to happen! -- then the American Left has lost its way. How else would you describe it?

The Iowa caucus thrilled me. The centrist wing of the Democratic Party won out over the radicals. Once again, the vanguardists have to face the fact that the American people aren't stupid. And when they vote, politicians should learn to listen.

Oh, and Ralph, since you used a fake email address to reply to me, I'm not sure if you'll bother to ready my reply, or if you ARE exactly what upsets me about the current American Left: someone who'll snipe from a distance in the self-righteous comfort of anonimity, but unwilling to engage in real debate.

Either way, this for you. You asked where I was during all those liberal programatic times. Well, I'll tell you. I was in El Salvador. Twice. Doing solidarity work w/ a parish made up primarily of ex-FMLN veterans. Where were you?

"Self-righteous comfort of anonymity"? Snipe from the distance?

Some of us choose to avoid the limelight. Nothing shocking. There are peacocks, and there are the slow, monastic creatures that roam at night, with dull colors and dazzling intellect.

Anyhow...

My fellow human, 9/11 was a shocking event. Truly, it was. However, you are responding much the same as Joe and Betty Sixpack, and your analysis of the attack is as unrealistic (forgive me) as, sadly, the analysis of many of our fellow American citizens.

You wrote:
"Bin Laden hates us not because of anything we've done (look at what he says!) but because of who we are: A society that believes in separation of church & state, equal rights for women, freedom of expression, etc."

...which is, sadly, very much an incorrect analysis. Why then, did he not attack Sweden, or Canada -- countries considerably more liberal than the US? To claim that bin Laden attacked the US because we have freedom of expression is (sorry) absurd. To claim that bin Laden attacked the US because we have a separation between church and state is (again, my apologies) absurd. Osama bin Laden has stated time and time again that he wants to unite the Arab world to rid the region of the Zionist/heretical influences, and as a result enjoy a culture that follows strict Wahhabist dogma. In this, at least you and I can agree that he's quite off his rocker, but where you say, "he hates us because we're free," I say, "he hates us because we prop up the state of Israel, have military bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab nations, throw our weight around the world unjustly (do not contradict me on this; we both know the US/CIA has -- unfortunately -- supported Arab dictators WELL in advance of the "liberation" of Iraq) and our culture has a huge influence (he would say "degrading influence") on Arab culture." This last point, though, pales in comparison with his other, previously stated goals.

By invading Iraq, we have overthrown Saddam Hussein, who -- even though he was evil -- oppressed the fundementalists in his own nation because they were a power threat. Saddam's Iraq -- though a horrible, fearful place -- was secular. Saddam was a minority Sunni keeping the Shiites in check. There are also many Christians who live there without fear of persecution. However, by invading Iraq, we have loosed the floodgates -- we have lost credibility with a large Arab populace who sees us as tyrants, and the fundamentalist Shiites (who were oppressed by Saddam) are clamoring for power, now, immediately. Let me spell it out for you: fundamentalists in government.

If you were to ask me, the misguided liberal, about how the US should respond, you would get a response about finally treating the rest of humanity in this world with respect, pressuring Israel to follow through on UN resolutions EXPRESSLY stating that the West Bank occupation is illegal, the creation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders, dissolution of a misguided policy of pre-emptive attack (which goes contrary to every law of man), outreach programs to poverty and disease-stricken nations, and no more unnecessary military games for spurious reasons costing $200 billion when that money is sorely needed here, for American citizens.

Where was I during the Clinton administration? I was studying.

Lastly, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. The Semites are of the linguistic branch which includes the Arab language, thus anti-Semitic = anti-Middle Eastern. But in seriousness, criticism of the nation of Israel is entirely proper (when necessitated.) Blanket discrimination against Jewish PEOPLE is anti-Semitism. There is a difference. And it is a fair difference.

Ralph:

OK, I'll apologize if I attacked you too quickly. But I get frequent comments (many of them in offensive language) from people who disagree w/ me but are obviously not interested in anything I can reply back. You're not one of those; I apologize.

I do disagree w/ some of your counter-arguments. When I said bin Laden hates us for our liberalism, I didn't mean our left-wingism. Keep in mind that "liberalism" means different things in context. I always use "liberal" in its historical-ideological context, that is, as the ideology shared by nearly all Western societies. Sweden isn't as much liberal (in contrast to the US) as it is a social-democracy (that is, a hybrid of liberalism & socialism).

Now. Why didn't bin Laden choose to attack those other countries? Well. Because for better or worse, the US has been the leader of the Western, liberal world since the end of the Second World War.

And I would say that bin Laden hates us primarily for our values, not just our support of Israel. One could ask why bin Laden doesn't attack other countries that support Israel, say. Or why his groups attack countries that do in fact oppose Israel. Also, the point about bases in Saudi Arabia is distorted. Bin Laden was venting anti-American views long before the First Gulf War (back when we had no bases in Saudi Arabia).

You bring up the point about being anti-Israel not making one anti-Semitic. Quite right. But I'm sure you're at least vaguely aware of the correlation between anti-war protests and anti-Semitic violence in Europe (most notably France). And the fact that groups affiliated w/ ANSWER aren't just opposed to Isreali policy, but to the existence of the state of Israel itself. In fact, several Jewish groups (that support a Palestinian state & oppose Israeli policy) were very crudely rebuffed by ANSWER when they tried to participate in protests. Principally, because they were Jewish. I think that counts as anti-Semitism, don't you?

Also, you're quite right the US has — in the past — supported some shaddy characters, to say the least. However, the CIA never supported bin Laden himself. We supported some mujahedeen, not all of them. But the argument that the US "created" Hussein (also a false one), even if true, has no bearing on the our future responsibilty. If we created monsters, and are held moraly responsible for them, then I think it's our responsibility to make ammends.