Sixty years ago today, the Japanese government accepted surrender terms from the allies, saving millions of lives in what would have been a futile last-ditch defense of the home islands. A formal signing would take place a couple weeks later, on September 2, 1945.
And Ann Althouse points out another anniversary today, from a quarter of a century ago. It was the beginning of the liberation of eastern Europe, and the beginning of the end of the Cold War.
I went to read the NYT editorial that Sam pointed out, in which they advocate cancelling Shuttle and ISS. I assumed that if it was the right recommendation, it was probably for the wrong reasons, given their history, but I actually could find very little with which to disagree. Really, the only reason to keep Space Station Albatross going has been the diplomatic one. Unfortunately, that’s probably been enough, given that the administration has been loathe to give its enemies one more club with which to bash them over our relations with our “allies.” But as the Times points out, even they would probably be relieved to get out from under this white elephant themselves (though they’d know doubt spout crocodile tears about this latest unforgiveable breach in international relations).
Some are complaining in Sam’s post that the only reason that the Times is doing this is because they hate “the manned space program.” Well, if they do, it’s partly because there’s a lot to hate there, and little to love at this point. But they also have to reconcile this charge with the Times’ argument that killing off these deadweight programs could accelerate outward human exploration. In fact, usually the argument from NASA manned spaceflight enthusiasts whenever it’s suggested that we end the Shuttle (and/or ISS) program is that it will toll the end of manned spaceflight in the US, and that a bird in the hand is better than two in the…errrr…Bush.
That argument may have had some resonance prior to January 14th, 2004, when the only human-in-space policy was Shuttle and ISS, but it doesn’t any longer. Yes, some new president could come in and cancel the exploration initiative in 2008, and if that happens, it would be impossible to resurrect the Shuttle and station if they’re ended now. But barring some major political earthquake, I find that scenario unlikely. For better or worse, the public does seem to have some intrinsic desire to see human spaceflight at NASA continue, and I don’t think that it’s in the cards politically to end it. In fact, with the new program having been bought into by both the administration and Congress, I’d think that NASA manned space program proponents would be eager to shed these deadweight programs so they can get on to the more exciting activities of returning to the Moon and going on to Mars. Unless, of course, they’re getting their paychecks from the status quo…
And of course, this all ignores the vast potential for much more interesting private human spaceflight activities, which I’m quite confident will make almost everything that NASA is doing in this area irrelevant by the end of the decade.
Anyway, as I said, I could find little in the editorial with which to disagree. I’ll toss in my concurrence as well, though from a long-term policy standpoint, I don’t really think that it makes much difference to our future in space whether we end these dinosaurs now or later. Either way, humanity’s expansion into the cosmos will have little to do with anything happening at JSC, Marshall and the Cape now. They did some noble and needed pioneering things there forty years ago, but I’m afraid that when it comes to the future, they continue to represent the past.
John Podhoretz says that there may be much less to the “Able Danger” issue than meets the eye. This doesn’t, of course, relieve the commission of its (what I consider) disgraceful behavior in whitewashing Jamie Gorelick’s role, and allowing her to remain on the commission, instead of what she properly should have been–a witness.
In tomorrow’s New York Times, they call for the cancellation of Shuttle and ISS. I called for it last June. Seems like a long shot still.
Andrew McCarthy writes about hypocrisy in Turtle Bay.
I’m amazed that even Dana Milbank could write tripe like this with a straight face:
Democratic strategist Chris Lehane, who like Shrum favors hardball politics, protested that “we Democrats bring a well-thumbed copy of Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the other side unsheaths their bloody knives, with a predictable outcome.” Lehane said the NARAL ad “was great, and exactly the type of offensive that breaks through in the modern age.”
Chris Lehane plays by Marquis of Queensberry Rules? That would be hilarious if it weren’t so nuts. I mean, not even the moonbats at Kos can take that one seriously.
You know, amidst all of the calls to pull the ad, maybe I’ve missed them, but I haven’t seen any that did so because it was scurrilous and false–the line generally seems to be that it should be pulled because it was counterproductive. In other words, lying is all right, if it helps the cause. It reminds me of the “Palestinians” who have disavowed murdering Israelis, not because there’s anything wrong with it, but because it was failing as a tactic.
Only the seriously demented Iowahawk could come up with this concept, let alone execute it.
Jeff Foust points to a memo that indicates agreement between NASA and the DoD on new launch systems. Read the comments, too (not just my continuing frustration with the man-rating myth, but the last one by Jim Muncy).
Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:
The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.
Michael Totten writes about who we are at war with, and who they are at war with:
The overwhelming majority of Islamist killers aren’t terrorists. They are soldiers and members of state-sanctioned death squads. Most victims of Islamists violence aren’t Westerners…they’re the Islamists’ fellow Muslims. It’s easy to forget this — or not even be aware of it — if you aren’t interested in what happens inside the Muslim world when George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the rest in the West aren’t involved.