A Conservative's Musings on All Things Political

50 Years of Human Spaceflight

Gordon Olivant

April 12, 2011

Fifty years ago today, on April 12, 1961 the Soviet Union won the first leg of the Space race when 27 year old Soviet Air Force Colonel Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin became the first man to orbit the earth. More significantly on that day humanity took its first step beyond the home world where life itself began. Three weeks later US Navy Commander Alan B. Sheppard road Mercury Redstone 3 on a suborbital mission and the race had been joined. For the next decade man’s initial exploration of the cosmos was defined, if not driven, by the race between the Soviet Union and the United States. The science and engineering discoveries of that decade, and the four that have followed have been breathtaking. One cannot understate the economic impact on the United States of the advancements realized by the space program. Yet it was the political rivalry between the then super powers which drove the race into space. That race marked its unofficial end on July 20, 1969 when the Stars & Stripes were unveiled by Neil Armstrong on the Moon’s Sea of Tranquility. The flight of Apollo 11 has been described by Stephen Hawking as the most significant event in the history of mankind.

April 12, 1961: The Dawn of Human Spaceflight

In the years that followed the space race waned and mirrored the relationship between the two super powers. At the height of détente in July 1975, just 6 years after Apollo 11 put America on the moon, US Air Force Brigadier General Thomas Stafford shook hands with Soviet Air Force Colonel Alexei Leonov after the docking of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project. Ironically it has been reported than Colonel Leonov had been selected to lead the first soviet lunar landing mission which never occurred. The 80’s saw the return of the rivalry as the US Space Shuttle rocketed past all other spacecraft before, or since, in terms of its capabilities on orbit. So capable was the space shuttle that in 1988 the Soviets test flew their own “Buran” space shuttle. It was only coincidence the Soviets claimed that their shuttle appeared identical to the American Shuttles. As the cold war ended, the American and Russian programs joined forces to construct the International Space Station (with limited involvement of the Japanese, Canadian and European Space Agency). Again, politics played a driving role in determining both the direction and aggressiveness of our space program. But one thing remained unchallenged from the day Apollo 11 landed on the moon through this very day as the space shuttle ends its 30 year run: America has been the world leader in space technology and exploration.

The impact of the space program over the past 50 years cannot be understated. Things we take for granted like transoceanic phone service, live TV transmissions and our ever present Satellite navigation systems are a direct result of developments in the space program. Computer technology and miniaturization were driven forward in years in what otherwise would have taken decades. Yet perhaps most important in hide sight was the contrast in the Soviet and American space programs and how the US program came to symbolize that which was right with America. While the Soviet conducted their program in secrete, reveling both their successes and hiding their failures after the fact, we conducted our program in full view of all humanity. As a 5 year old I remember my father keeping me up that July night to watch Apollo 11 and then taking me outside and pointing at the moon and saying “remember tonight, there are men on that moon” (I missed the significance at the time as I just could not see them there). Apollo 13 has come to symbolize the strength and resilience of the American spirit where “failure is not an option”. All who were old enough in 1986 remember where they were when the Space Shuttle Challenger was lost live on television, but we also saw how Discovery returned to flight in 1988. As President Ronald Reagan said in an address to the nation on the night Challenger was lost “We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute. We’ll continue our quest in space.”

Apollo 16 Commander John Young's Leaping Salute of the American Flag, April 1972

That brings us to today, the 50th anniversary of the birth of the era of space exploration. What has been done over the last half century will pale in comparison with what the future holds for mankind.

Today we watch with some sadness as the space shuttle program passes into history having seen it’s time come and go. The US and Russia have been joined by the Chinese as the only nation to have placed humans into space, but the Indians, Japanese and Europeans all have openly discussed joining that club. However one nation will leave that group in just a matter of months, the United States. With the end of the space shuttle program, and President Obama’s cancelation of the Constellation program which would have continued US manned orbital flight and led us back to the moon and on to Mars, the United States will for the first time in half a century have neither the capability to place humans in space, but will not even have a viable replacement system under development. While the President claims to have put the future in the hands of the private sector, he has done so without viable funding. When the next flag is placed on the moon or mars, it will not be American, but rather most likely Chinese. Barak Obama simply does not understand what it means for America to lead. He does not understand that great nations do great things. He does not realize that space is the high ground to America’s defense, or if he does he simply wants to abandon it to other nations. President Obama’s failure of leadership has abandoned our leadership in space and conceded it to the Russians and the Chinese. What those countries could not win in the Space Race, Barak Obama has willingly given them. Let us hope that those with better vision and commitment to America’s leadership reverse Obama’s mistake before the damage is irreversible. If not, America will not a leader, let alone the leader as humanity continues to explore the final frontier.

Time for a Reality Check

Gordon Olivant

no comments

April 8, 2011

While at some time today it will become clear if a deal is reached on the FY2011 budget, the media rhetoric is out of control and straight from the White House talking points. We need to keep in mind that this is the Fiscal Year 2011 budget which for the federal government began October 1, 2010. Already are half way through the fiscal year and congress and the president are only now coming to an artificial faceoff over the budget. Shame on all of them. How would my mortgage company (or yours) respond if I waited more than 6 months into my year to get my financial house in order? It is the President and Congress’s job to get a budget in place and if there is going to be a deadline it should be September 30, the day before a Fiscal Year begins. Its time a government ran like any other institution and if there is no budget in place, it should close down on October 1^st, period. The first step in restoring fiscal stability to our country is to force government to get things done on time like the rest of us.

All the hyperbole coming from the talking heads on cable news today is focused on how the Republicans in congress are playing chicken with the President and the nearly invisible Senate democrats. Forgotten is the fact the drama of today is the direct result of the total failure of the 111st Congress to get a budget in place by October 1^st 2010 when FY 2010 began. Forgotten is the 111st Congress was controlled by strong Democrat majorities in BOTH the House and Senate as well as having a Democrat in the white House who would sign anything they sent him. Moreover, the commentators forget the Senate Democrats had one of the largest majorities in the past century. The current situation is a direct result of

The Democrat Controled 111st Congress and President Obama Failed to Pass a Budget by the Beginning of FY 2011 on October 1, 2010

the failure of the democratic leadership to get its job done before it went off to campaign for the November 2010 elections. Indeed Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) laid out the democratic strategy in an open mic moment of honesty when he laid out the Democrat strategy to blame the Republicans for any shut down. Seems the media loved chuck’s strategy so much they are singing his song today, in harmony.

What the people of the United States need is a budget on time. Let’s have the political arguments in full view of the people in the months leading up to the beginning of the fiscal year. If Congress and the President cannot meet one of their core responsibilities, let the people pass judgment upon them at the voting booth. I am not a big supporter of legislating by way of the Constitution, but it may be time to say the government must have a budget in place by the beginning of the fiscal year, period. Today we are simply getting a demonstration of what is structurally wrong with Washington. The American people deserve better.

Jeb Bush for President in 2012 (or 2016)?

Gordon Olivant

no comments

February 19, 2011

It is likely that if the 43^rd Governor of Florida had the name Jeb Pierce (his mother’s maiden name) rather than that shared with his father the 41^st President and his brother the 43^rd President; Jeb would be firmly positioned as the Republican frontrunner for 2012. Yet he has been sidelined for the most part because of questions as to how much impact his family’s history would have on a run for president.

In 2000, the second term Governor of Texas was propelled into the frontrunner position largely as a result of his family’s political brand. In the wake of the 1992 presidential election many Americans felt George H. W. Bush was unjustly denied a second term as President. His handling of the presidency was regarded as skillful and his foreign policy achievements considerable. More significantly from a political perspective, the Bush Brand was seen as trustworthy and a moral contrast to the Clinton years. George W. Bush was immediately positioned as a leader who could restore the Presidency. Additionally his performance as Governor of Texas showed an ability of a Conservative to work with the opposition and to attract Hispanic voters to the Republican Party. The 2000 election was in no small way a 1992 do-over.

Yet even in 2000 there were those who found the question of a political dynasty to be problematic. To be clear, much of this was the left wing media who were troubled with a Republican family achieving multi-generational success while longing for the Liberal Kennedy’s to restore Camelot. Indeed considering Prescott S. Bush was the two term Republican Senator for Connecticut, the three generation achievements of the Bush family had already established it as America’s leading political family. For the most part this concern was confined to the leftist conspiracy blogs and embittered journalists who never liked the Bush Family.

Less reported was the tarnished view of many Conservatives towards the Bush family. Dating back to the 1980 presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush was viewed skeptically by the right given his views on abortion (a flip flop), the perception of his as a north eastern country club Republican and his betrayal of his 1988 campaign pledge to not raise taxes. May conservatives were troubled by George W. Bush’s claim to be a “Compassionate Conservative” and the subtle implication that prior conservative in some way lacked compassion. This was compounded by the memory of the 41^st Presidents inaugural address promising a “kinder and gentler” America, a perceived swipe at Ronald Reagan.

Today Jeb will be burdened with the evolving mixed legacy of the 43^rd President, a legacy he will forever be inexorably tied to given his role ad Florida Governor in the contested 2000 presidential election. To be blunt, the legacy of George W. Bush is complicated. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are politically as divisive as any issue in a quarter century. From the left would come a firestorm and their friends in the main stream media would stoke the flames. Amongst conservatives there are mixed feelings and concerns over the uncontrolled spending, especially in the second term, and dedication to comprehensive immigration reform that Bush so forcefully advocated.

Yet the reality of Jeb Bush is compelling and makes him the most attractive candidate, and more importantly the strongest potential president in the field today. His performance as Governor of Florida has been widely praised as both an example of effective conservative policies and competent leadership. Bush is regarded as one of the most thoughtful leaders in the conservative movement who has also been effective at reaching out to nontraditional Republican supporters, especially Hispanic voters. He left office in 2007 as one of the most popular Governors in the history of Florida, one of the critical states in any presidential election.

So far jeb has repeatedly claimed no interest in running for President in 2012, although he has left the door open to a later run. However in politics timing is indeed everything and many factors point to 2012 being Jeb Bush’s time. The race to unseat Barak Obama will not be as easy as many on the right think. The most effective path to victory for a Republican will be the question of competent leadership. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the American people personally like President Obama, they are realizing he is a more radical liberal than he campaigned as and is simply over his head in the White House. Obama has been reactive to most of the challenges of his administration and has ceded leadership to the radical liberals who dominate democrats on Capitol Hill. Without question, Jeb Bush is the strongest contrast to date the GOP could present in 2012.

When one looks at the field of GOP contenders emerging, none seem to have the same ability to appeal to the conservative base as well as reaching out to independents and moderate democrats. In an election where the escalating national debt is likely to be a dominate factor, Jeb’s record of responsible fiscal management in Florida would be a solid foundation for his candidacy. Bush has demonstrated an ability to embrace the core values of the Tea Party movement while not tolerating the small fringe elements the media and left like to focus on. Jeb Bush has the ability to unite the Republican Party as no other candidate who has emerged to date.

Politically, Bush has established himself as an able candidate during his three state wide campaigns in Florida and continuing presence on the national stage. While the left wing blogs are dismissive and the liberal media quick to talk dynasty, Bush would be both a match for and distinct contrast to Barak Obama in debates and on the campaign trail. An unapologetic conservative with a record of achievement. However the most compelling rational for a Bush candidacy is that at a time when America faces serious challenges on the economic, global and homeland security fronts, Jeb Bush appears to be one of the strongest and most capable contenders to lead America.

Jeb Bush is a Bush and a member of a family who has given honorable service to our nation over three generations. But most importantly his personal story is one of conservative vision, commitment and leadership. To be certain the blogosphere and the media would be in knots over a Bush candidacy, but the American people have a way of seeing through those distractions and grasping the reality of a candidate. Every leader has a time and when that coincides with the needs of the nation a potential rendezvous with destiny emerges. For Jeb Bush that time is 2012.

Freedom in the Internet Era

Gordon Olivant

no comments

February 18, 2011

As one whose political coming of age was during the 1980’s, a cornerstone to the foreign policy of the west as personified by Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher was the right of people to self determination. During the Cold war our focus was on those in Eastern Europe and Soviet regions such as the Baltic States. While the fall of the Soviet Empire brought freedom to much of Europe it was but a dream to a many people. In recent weeks we have seen the people of Egypt express their desire to live in a more open and representative state. While the role of the internet is wildly exaggerated by the media, there is no doubt that the ability of ideas to transcend boarders is a dramatic change in international politics. Additionally we are reminded that tyranny has not faded from the earth and regimes such as those in Mainland China continue to rule by the total suppression of free expression by their people.

With this in mind, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could receive no better compliment than the condemnations coming from the Chinese government over proposals outlined in her speech on Tuesday. In that speech Secretary Clinton proposed a $25 million program aimed at developing technology which would allow internet users around the world to circumvent attempts by government to block their citizens ability to access content on the internet. This is particularly disturbing to the Chinese as it potentially would circumvent their “Great Firewall”. Chinese foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu is quoted in the New York Times (2/17/2011) as saying “we are against any other countries using Internet freedom as a pretext for interfering in others’ internal affairs”. This has the same song we heard from Moscow over our Voice of America broadcasts in the 1980’s.

It would be naive to think internet freedom would lead to real political change and freedom in China. Any country willing to drive tanks over hundreds of their own citizens as the Communist rulers in China did in Tiananmen Square in 1989. As we have seen words and ideas have real power and people’s quest for freedom can over time prove unstoppable. There once was a time when American Foreign Policy was truly bipartisan and this is one proposal both parties should strongly support. There is no more challenging relationship facing the United States than China and we need to realize the long term threat they pose not only to the America but to freedom around the world. While this program is a small first step, it is a step in the right direction. With luck freedom just may break through the Great Firewall.

On Facts and Liberal Leftists Myths: The National Debt

Gordon Olivant

2 comments

February 18, 2011

The following comment was left in reply to my post yesterday on the F 35 JSF “Alternate Engine” (feel free to read the comment if interested in the author):

[Any republican who votes in favor of this project will not be able to claim any commitment to fiscal responsibility.]

To late. Republican policies are responsible for some 90% of the national debt.

I do feel the need to shed a little light on this comment as it is a common urban myth on the left side of the street.

Fact 1: the Obama administration is running the largest deficts as a percentage of GDP in history.

Fact 2: The Obama Administration has proposed deficts which will take the National debt to levels never seen in modern history.

Now, I am in no way defending the spending practices of the Bush administration and the republican congress which failed to show fiscal control while in power. If you read my post I clearly say that eliminating spending such as the F35 Alternate Engine is a test of credibility of Republicans in Congress. The American people sent a message to Republicans in November 2010 at the very moment they handed the majority in the House to the GOP; act responsibly or we will fire you again and find someone who will. At the same time the Liberal Left cannot come to terms with the reality that their tax and spend policies creat out of control deficits; its in their DNA. But the leftist myth that Republicans have created the majority of the debt is BUSTED.