In the recent months there has been much talk of the Chinese's ability and acheivment putting a total of three people into space. This has even allowed the paranoid to talk of "instability" and "balance of power" with the Chinese and even a "Chinese hegemon" overtaking the United States. It has also allowed those envious of the United States position in the world to gleefully speak of the United States' demise. While I admit, I do not know what will happen, I will venture out on a limb and say that China will not threaten the United States becaues their situation is so delicate. However, I do want to touch on the possiblility of China sending a manned mission to the moon by 2020.
I don't think they will make it. Let me explain:
The technological skill required to get into space is tremendous, yet the skill involved in going to the moon, I would say is probably tenfold. While all you really need is math, some pretty cool hardware, and a lot of stuff that goes "boom!", getting to the moon is actually more difficult than it seems. The science isn't hard. We can all calculate or have the computers calculate launch window, inclinations, transluner insertion, and lunar orbital insertion required to get a spacecraft in orbit around the moon. However, actually landing on it is where all the hardware and talent come in.
In the U.S. space program, all the early astronauts had to be graduates of test pilot school and have over 2,000 hours flight time. Plus they had to meet a myriad of other qualifications (read The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe) to find out more. Yet, this is the key--they were all test pilots. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were test pilots. They were used to the hair-pin, seat-of-your-pants flying knowing that at any moment disaster could strike, and with it, death. And it was something that they all found fun.
So, when Neil and Buzz were landing on the moon, Neil noticed that the predetermined landing site was rocky and unsuitable for landing. He took control and steered the craft to a safe landing on the moon, using the same seat-of-your-pants skills that he learned as a test pilot. He brought it down with 30 seconds of fuel left and Mission Control Houston breathed again. But this was the breed and the enginuity with which we went to the moon--because we could. We were not the originators of spaceflight but through our quality control were able to produce a product that worked successfully. The Russians could not.
The Chinese have a similar problem. They are good at copying things. Real good. Ask about the Buick copies made in China. But they have nothing original to offer nor no test pilot experience to fall back on. They might be able to design the machine, do the math, and get there people in an orbit around the moon, but I do not believe that they have the ability and the technical know-how nor the simple experience to but a Chinese on the moon. Their show of space power is simply to keep the U.S. guessing. We have to keep the Chinese and all out enemies on the defensive and not allow them any time to jeopardize our national security.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
UN Calls on Iran to End Nuke Program ... Whoopti-floppin'-doodah!!
I am still working on a post for "Why I Am a Conservative" but I saw this article and just had to point out something:
I think it is really ironic that the UN and the EU are calling on Iran to end thier nuclear weapons program. I don't see any difference than this situation than Iraq because the UN called on their disarmament and disclosure for over 12 years and that did not come about. What makes people think that this demand is going to be any different 12 years down the road? The only reason I can see this being different is the fact that the U.S. and Israel will act and take out the known nuclear facilities.
Now, of course, there are different motives for this support. The United States is threatening Iran because of their influence in Iraq and the ruling Mullahs and the President are simply crazy--they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Now Russia comes to the table with a different stance: they want to continue their trade with the Iranians and making money with oil. China, well, I don't know what to think about China, but I am sure that they want to continue to see Russia to do well.
But, I still stick to my original point: what good is this going to do since we have witnessed the failure of diplomacy with Iraq? I guess only time will tell.
I think it is really ironic that the UN and the EU are calling on Iran to end thier nuclear weapons program. I don't see any difference than this situation than Iraq because the UN called on their disarmament and disclosure for over 12 years and that did not come about. What makes people think that this demand is going to be any different 12 years down the road? The only reason I can see this being different is the fact that the U.S. and Israel will act and take out the known nuclear facilities.
Now, of course, there are different motives for this support. The United States is threatening Iran because of their influence in Iraq and the ruling Mullahs and the President are simply crazy--they can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Now Russia comes to the table with a different stance: they want to continue their trade with the Iranians and making money with oil. China, well, I don't know what to think about China, but I am sure that they want to continue to see Russia to do well.
But, I still stick to my original point: what good is this going to do since we have witnessed the failure of diplomacy with Iraq? I guess only time will tell.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A Common Sense Approach
I am often asked--mostly by liberals--why I am a conservative. And this is asked with condemnation and disbelief that I, as a conservative, am such an insensitive, uncaring person. And I don't want to answer this with a religious argument or with the "because my parents were" although both of these do have a bearing on my conservatism but, as I see it, are not instrumental to my conservative beliefs.
The following quote is attributed to Winston Churchill and well, many others, so I do not know who said it first: "A man who is not a socialist in his 20s has no heart; yet, a man not a conservative in his 30s has no brain."
That quote completely defines my political philosophy. While I am a 20-something guy, I am proud of the fact that I have no heart because I know that being a conservative is correct. Let me start by giving you a brief history of my political beliefs and I want to demonstrate my political views without coloring them with religion. Yes, that has partly something to do with it, but I believe that being a conservative means sticking to three basic principles: reason, logic, and truth.
The following quote is attributed to Winston Churchill and well, many others, so I do not know who said it first: "A man who is not a socialist in his 20s has no heart; yet, a man not a conservative in his 30s has no brain."
That quote completely defines my political philosophy. While I am a 20-something guy, I am proud of the fact that I have no heart because I know that being a conservative is correct. Let me start by giving you a brief history of my political beliefs and I want to demonstrate my political views without coloring them with religion. Yes, that has partly something to do with it, but I believe that being a conservative means sticking to three basic principles: reason, logic, and truth.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Alito and Abortion
One thing that has occured to me as I have watched the Alito hearings, and it seems that this occurs out of order because it took place on Tuesday, but I have been mulling it around in my head. Spector and all the Democrats are trying to paint Alito into a corner on abortion and his views regarding it. They used phrases regarding Roe as "super-duper precedent" and point out that it has been standing for 35 years and been tested many times.
Well, if memory serves me correctly, under that logic then Plessy v. Ferguson would be "super-duper precedent." I know the liberals are turning over in their grave: "How dare you say that!" "You want to reinstate segregation!" "You're a racist!!!" so for those that think that a super-duper precedent can't be over turned are just wrong. Also, the party that is so for equality is the party that is so racist by thinking they can make decisions for the minority community about welfare, yet they tout a "women's right to choose." unbelievable.
As Mark Levin said today: "We won. Don't worry about Alito because we won my friend."
Well, if memory serves me correctly, under that logic then Plessy v. Ferguson would be "super-duper precedent." I know the liberals are turning over in their grave: "How dare you say that!" "You want to reinstate segregation!" "You're a racist!!!" so for those that think that a super-duper precedent can't be over turned are just wrong. Also, the party that is so for equality is the party that is so racist by thinking they can make decisions for the minority community about welfare, yet they tout a "women's right to choose." unbelievable.
As Mark Levin said today: "We won. Don't worry about Alito because we won my friend."
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
The NSA and Unfortunate Americans
i want to take a stab at this NSA "scandal" that has been in the media for the past few weeks because i heard a great analogy today about the circumstances.
a caller into the Sean Hannity show made the point that even if the persons on one end of a terrorist phone call tapped by the NSA was an american citizen, that person is not the one being spied on--it is the terrorist on the other end. so, the NSA is not maliciously looking for American citizens (or citizens at all, just persons residing either in the U.S. and placing terrorist calls overseas or terrorist calls coming into the United States. this is the point that frustrates me the most about the Democrats is they constantly harp that this program was "spying on American citizens" and that is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. They are the one's LYING on that, shouldn't they be impeaced?) but none-the-less, these phone calls that were intecepted were not tapped because a malicious intent, they were tapped so the NSA could gather information from the terrorist calling to either spread information or confirm plans or something relating to terrorist operations. THAT is the reason the phone calls were intercepted and IF, and that is a big if, IF some, poor unfortunate, innocent American citizen was heard through that action in defense of the country, then they have nothing to worry about if they were innocent, because the action taken was not to listen to the American--it was to listen to the terrorist and the American or other person on the line happened to be just another victim of the terrorist and not an "imperial presidency."
i had the very fortunate opportunity as a freshman in college to talk to a CIA employee five months after the attacks on 9-11 and a person in my group asked the question: "Has the United States stopped other terrorist attacks from occuring in the country?" The briefer simply replied: "Yes." and moved onto another question. that to me is reassuring, and honestly, i don't really care how the United States stopped them, all i know, and i believe all the American people want to know is that their government is doing everything that it can to stop the terrorists. and if Bush did go through the very public debates of changing the law, then it would most certainly become public much sooner and the terrorists could adapt that much quicker.
another point on this wiretap issues stems from the Alito conirmation hearings. some Democrat was asking the question yesterday about this particular issue and Alito went into this elloquent description of the evolution "property law" and the protection of "personal property" and how before the expectation was that one had a reasonable expectation to be secure in their property (home, etc.) and this was the standard for giving warrants--that there had to be reasonable expectation about event occuring on that property. but as technology has advanced that definition has been expanded from being secure in one's property but being secure in one's person.
hypothetical situation:
suppose you are a policeman patrolling a steet and you see a person break into a house. the lights instantaneuosly come on and you see sillouhettes struggling in the window. in order to protect and preserve the peace, as an officer of the law, you are going to rush into that house and first off, defend the person(s) whose house is being broken into. secondly, you are going to attempt to apprehend the subject. yet, if the subject has a gun it might be necessary for you to either draw to defend yourself and the person's home but to also, possibly shoot the suspect. now, is the person whose home was just broken into going to sue for invasion of privacy? they might, anything is certainly possible, but more often than not, the are going to thank you for saving their life and their family and offer you a beer.
now also, as this officer you are not going to see the person break into the house and then call in on the radio and request that they wake a judge to sign a search warrant so you can set foot on this person's property to pursue the bandit. the police have an obligation to protect "life and limb" and my do so without search warrants.
so does the President of the United States. he has the obligation, as it is in his oath of office, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for Militia's in defense of the United States and to protect her from "invaders." Article II then provides that the President is the Commander-in-Cheif of the Militia. So clearly, he can use any means necessary to defend the United States.
Case solved. The American people see this. Bush's poll numbers are 46%!!
a caller into the Sean Hannity show made the point that even if the persons on one end of a terrorist phone call tapped by the NSA was an american citizen, that person is not the one being spied on--it is the terrorist on the other end. so, the NSA is not maliciously looking for American citizens (or citizens at all, just persons residing either in the U.S. and placing terrorist calls overseas or terrorist calls coming into the United States. this is the point that frustrates me the most about the Democrats is they constantly harp that this program was "spying on American citizens" and that is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. They are the one's LYING on that, shouldn't they be impeaced?) but none-the-less, these phone calls that were intecepted were not tapped because a malicious intent, they were tapped so the NSA could gather information from the terrorist calling to either spread information or confirm plans or something relating to terrorist operations. THAT is the reason the phone calls were intercepted and IF, and that is a big if, IF some, poor unfortunate, innocent American citizen was heard through that action in defense of the country, then they have nothing to worry about if they were innocent, because the action taken was not to listen to the American--it was to listen to the terrorist and the American or other person on the line happened to be just another victim of the terrorist and not an "imperial presidency."
i had the very fortunate opportunity as a freshman in college to talk to a CIA employee five months after the attacks on 9-11 and a person in my group asked the question: "Has the United States stopped other terrorist attacks from occuring in the country?" The briefer simply replied: "Yes." and moved onto another question. that to me is reassuring, and honestly, i don't really care how the United States stopped them, all i know, and i believe all the American people want to know is that their government is doing everything that it can to stop the terrorists. and if Bush did go through the very public debates of changing the law, then it would most certainly become public much sooner and the terrorists could adapt that much quicker.
another point on this wiretap issues stems from the Alito conirmation hearings. some Democrat was asking the question yesterday about this particular issue and Alito went into this elloquent description of the evolution "property law" and the protection of "personal property" and how before the expectation was that one had a reasonable expectation to be secure in their property (home, etc.) and this was the standard for giving warrants--that there had to be reasonable expectation about event occuring on that property. but as technology has advanced that definition has been expanded from being secure in one's property but being secure in one's person.
hypothetical situation:
suppose you are a policeman patrolling a steet and you see a person break into a house. the lights instantaneuosly come on and you see sillouhettes struggling in the window. in order to protect and preserve the peace, as an officer of the law, you are going to rush into that house and first off, defend the person(s) whose house is being broken into. secondly, you are going to attempt to apprehend the subject. yet, if the subject has a gun it might be necessary for you to either draw to defend yourself and the person's home but to also, possibly shoot the suspect. now, is the person whose home was just broken into going to sue for invasion of privacy? they might, anything is certainly possible, but more often than not, the are going to thank you for saving their life and their family and offer you a beer.
now also, as this officer you are not going to see the person break into the house and then call in on the radio and request that they wake a judge to sign a search warrant so you can set foot on this person's property to pursue the bandit. the police have an obligation to protect "life and limb" and my do so without search warrants.
so does the President of the United States. he has the obligation, as it is in his oath of office, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." the Constitution gives Congress the power to provide for Militia's in defense of the United States and to protect her from "invaders." Article II then provides that the President is the Commander-in-Cheif of the Militia. So clearly, he can use any means necessary to defend the United States.
Case solved. The American people see this. Bush's poll numbers are 46%!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
