“Mystery creates wonder, and wonder is the basis of man’s desire to understand.” -Neil Armstrong

On July 20^th 1969, Man first stepped upon the moon.  Around 237 thousand miles away, Americans sat captivated as they watched the product of American ingenuity, determination, and scientific prowess.  This mission and the five after it would put a dream inside the minds of a generation; many would pursue that dream and become the scientists, engineers, and astronauts of today.  Unfortunately, these dreams have been waning for some time in our America.

NASA is expected to take in some 18.6 billion dollars in 2010 amidst rising criticism that a space program, particularly one exclusively financed by the government, is unnecessary.  The lack of clear tangible benefit or patriotic mission leads to opponents on both the left and the right.  Those 18 billion dollars could purchase two new Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers, not to mention ease rising social security costs or the national debt.  President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” policy announced on January 14^th 2004 has done little to convince Americans of the benefit of space exploration and research and even received criticism from Buzz Aldrin and others in the field for having misplaced priorities.  The proposed manned return to the moon would be costly and return little of value.  Though helium-3 has been proposed as a nuclear fusion fuel source, it remains beyond our current technology and does not pose a realistic reason for a new moon landing.

In the 1960s, NASA expended between 20 and 25 billion on the Apollo program (perhaps equivalent to more than 135 billion today).  Thousands of American scientists and engineers worked with one goal in mind, but in the process of doing so they created hundreds of new technologies that have become part of our everyday lives.  While not on the same budgetary level as the Apollo program, the creation of the space shuttle and the International Space Station has also led to many offshoots.  LEDs, artificial limbs, firefighting equipment, and many others have had substantial influence from the work of NASA.  Any new program, even to the moon, would lead to new discoveries.

It is Mars that poses the biggest bang for our buck.  While the two rovers currently on the surface—Spirit and Opportunity—are still active, a manned mission would return significantly more information than the robots ever could.  Humans could easily accomplish in a week what it took the robots, given their limited mobility and communications lag, achieved in their five years of service.  Mars is the first real step towards permanent off-world habitation.  With water near the poles and gravity stronger than the Moon’s, a long-term stay should be simpler.  Managed correctly, such a mission could also be a boon for the average American.  Instilling a new passion for the sciences would help counter the downward trend in science and math literacy in American schools.

Yet as much as science fiction has convinced me of the importance of space exploration for the future of mankind, it has not blinded me to the fact that it is not simply a lack of a dream that leaves American students with such abysmal scores in math and science.  In 2006, American 15 year olds scored far behind the average for students of prosperous Western European and Asian nations, particularly Germany and Japan.  We must solve our problems at home before venturing out and the best way to go about this is not the funneling of billions of dollars into the space program.  Education in America needs direct investment and reform.

I am by no means making an argument against space exploration, and hope that you, the reader, may be persuaded that it is something worth fighting for.  We simply do not have an environment in the United States in which any odyssey to the Moon or Mars would have a significant effect.  NASA ought to be held on the backburner while more pressing matters take precedence.  If we can make headway on our educational deficit, the space program could regain its importance.

In 1980, a realigning election took place. The campaign of Ronald Reagan and the efforts of his supporters in the following decades transformed the Republican party. A political awakening of Christians brought in votes for the party that suddenly billed itself as not only superior policy-wise, but morally. The free market was persuasively tied to personal liberty and convinced even some of the poorest Americans that regulations on financial institutions and consumable goods represented a direct threat to their liberty and economic advancement. What followed would see the electoral fortunes of the party rise ever higher, until reaching a climax with near domination of the executive and legislative branches. They used this unique opportunity to reduce the national debt, trim the overextended branches of the government, and ensure the American people against government intrusion.

This last bit did not happen, obviously. Debts piled up, public services continued, and the government was found again and again to be knowingly violating the privacy rights of its citizens. Many began to cast doubts on the direction of the party. Now, factions have begun infighting. The party has been led by those who have for three decades stirred their constituents into a frenzy, convincing them that the opponents of the party would literally destroy America. Facts have become malleable to agenda as conservatives have disputed everything from scientific consensus to the mainstream interpretation of the effects of the New Deal. As the party splinters, some of that vehemence has turned inward.

Glenn Beck Doin' His Thing

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh lead a lunatic fringe that has grown to near majority status, likely representing a good portion of the 30% of Americans who refused to give up on George Bush and those who opposed him for not going far enough. The economic conservatives who once looked at religious America as an opportunity for advancement now look in horror as the fanatical and nationalistic monster they created breaks free of its restraints and seeks dominance. One need not look further than the Birther movement to see the extreme to which some have gone. Though saner conservatives would like to dismiss them as a miniscule but vocal minority, there is evidence that 58% of Republicans doubt or outright deny the President’s eligibility. Worse still, this includes 70% of white southerners.

This is dangerous to our country as the fringe seems only to be gaining in momentum. Republican representatives will be forced to make the choice between giving credence to these claims or being attacked by their own party, as Representative Mike Castle (R-DE) so unpleasantly discovered. Castle has since turned away from the traditional “town hall” meeting to one conducted over the telephone. Many Republican politicians, wary of such confrontation have done the same, such as my own Representative, John Kline. By desperately trying to keep control of their message by limiting their contact with their voters, they may find a challenger from the distant Right come election time.

The GOP is in a very unpleasant situation. The old guard seems to be finding the new reality hard to face. Even Ann Coulter, author of Treason: Liberal Treachery, has alienated herself from her average readers by stating that the claims are untrue. If the sensible members of the party cannot address these claims they will find themselves hung out to dry as the division exacerbates or someone co-opts the party and swings it yet further to the right.

Just last month, Justice David Souter announced his intention to resign from the Supreme Court. A member of the liberal wing of the Court, he had undoubtedly been holding out until the end of Bush’s term. Sonia Sotomayor is the nominee put forth by Obama, and, barring unforeseen events, is sure to be the first Latina to hold the position. A solid choice, she is known for neither radicalism nor undue “judicial activism.” She served well as a District Court judge, followed by more than ten years as a judge in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Her past tells a story of largely unbiased and nuanced decisions.

This is not the way some conservatives would tell it. Many, ready to charge the administration with intentions of playing the race card on the nomination even before a choice was made, sought any dirt that could be watered down with spin and slung at the candidate. Unfortunately, the case of Ricci vs. DeStefano, in combination with a certain remark made by Sotomayor herself, has sent the talking heads jabbering. The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have since spent weeks blasting both her and the administration of everything from racism to fascism.

Now let me be clear here. The following, in itself, is not particularly acceptable: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

The statement can indeed be deemed offensive, but I, for one, am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she misspoke. She tried to pay homage to words of Justices Ginsburg and O’Conner, and spoke poorly. Given the context of her speech, and her judicial record (accusations over Ricci not withstanding), there is little evidence that she allows any racial prejudice to guide her decisions. Her decision was backed by the other two judges on the case, and the four liberal Supreme Court justices. During the confirmation hearing, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) questioned her on the subject. Sotomayor acknowledged that she misspoke and expressed an understanding of and regret for the furor it has raised. Senator Graham has since said he accepted her statement and will put his vote behind her.

Much like Samuel Alito, who cited his Italian-American heritage and immigrant parents, Sotomayor suggested that her experiences bring something new to the court. A diversity of knowledge and experience helps make a court well-rounded, just like anything else.

Of course, there are other things to be concerned about. What struck me most strongly when viewing some of her responses in the hearing was how much she complicated a simple answer. It is rather unsurprising that a former lawyer would speak in a form of legalese, but this rests uneasily with me nonetheless. Her responses to the matters of abortion and net neutrality seemed to barely answer the question. When asked, “What is your view on this subject?” she responded with, “The Supreme Court has said this. The Supreme Court has ruled like this.” One can assume that such answers implied her continuation of established precedent, but a straightforward answer should not have been so difficult to provide.

Her rulings also offer a rather cold adherence to the law, particularly in cases of defendant’s rights. A reason given for her candidature was her sense of empathy, but the case of Jeffrey Deskovic suggests it may be overstated. Imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, evidence was found that proved the defendant innocent. However, a mistake on the part of his attorney saw the appeal miss the deadline by four days. Sotomayor was on the court that dismissed it. Such appeals are rare anyways, but the court certainly lacked the empathy to hear the case of a man who was not at fault.

Sotomayor seems on her way to being confirmed, with votes mostly on party lines.Though she does not make quite the replacement for Souter, she will likely make a positive contribution to the Court. However, the majority of the GOP is likely to see themselves losing yet more ground among the American people. As Hispanics are a quickly growing minority, Republicans may see their traditional Southern strongholds start to slide. The crackpot theories and insane accusations espoused by the likes of Beck and Limbaugh will also serve to damage the party, driving it yet further from the mainstream. Really, a chance for the extremist Republicans to expose their party’s unhealthiness may have been one of the deciding factors in the nomination.