Page 4 - Reedley Exponent 12-27-18 E-edition

The Reedley Exponent A4 Thursday, December 27, 2018 Editorial & Opinions
Serving “The World’s Fruit Basket” since 1891
A Mid Valley Publishing Newspaper
Founded March 26, 1891, in a two-story building on the corner of 11th and F streets, by A.S. Jones
Fred Hall — Publisher
In my OPINION
It isn’t difficult for one to continue the imagination of hearing the joyful sounds of Christmas at this point in time. Listen care- fully and one will hear joyous laughter, the sounds of Christmas carols, the ringing of bells as well as all kinds of indications of the happiness this wondrous season traditionally has brought.
Other Opionons
Jon Earnest — Editor / Sports Juanita Adame — Panorama Editor Budd Brockett — Editor Emeritus
When we first broke the bonds of earth: the story of Apollo 8
I’ve even been able to move beyond the
report by one CNN reporter claiming Donald
Trump hated the month of December because
he was jealous of the fact Christ received
more attention than did he. That bit of breaking news was so asi- nine that it was quite easy to ignore because the large amount of hate needed to even utter such crap. A statement such as that truly shows the amount of contempt our “mainstream” press feels for the American people.
Now, a brand new year is upon us and every Californian needs to securely fasten their safety belt — and hide their wallet — be- cause the state, as usual, has enacted more ridiculous laws and mandated more regulations. It seems the only ones not impacted by legislative intrusion are those who do not work and the lawmak- ers themselves. Perhaps I should hedge a bit on that proclamation because our rather sizable criminal element has seen a reduction in their sentences for crimes and felonies are now misdemeanors. Ever wonder why it seems more lucrative than ever to be a career criminal?
The Democrats, who now seem to be in charge of about ev- erything, continue to treat the impending pension crisis as a shell game. We’re looking at an undertaking by our government which is severely underfunded. When the great “bank call” comes on this, guess who will ultimately responsible for making up the deficit. That would be the hard-working folks in the private sector who will have no pension of any kind when they retire. That’s after a lifetime of working really hard at about half the rate at which public sector employees are paid. Government represents a huge voting bloc here in California and always seem to vote to protect their self-interest, which is usually at odds with common sense and the private sector.
New laws, rules and regulations for 2019 range all the way from being nonsensical and innocuous to some which are truly egregious in terms of economic costs and intrusions on our Con- stitutional freedoms. We find at the lower end of the scale one new offering which truly turns the biology we were taught in school on its ear. My best recollections are that there are two sexes of each species. Now, in California that is no longer true.
It seems that the folks who look after our best interests in Sacramento have discovered there are at least three. In 2019, your driver’s license will indicate whether you are male, female or non- binary. Binary apparently indicates you are composed of two very different factors; a male side and a female side. Interesting as to what is considered politically correct these days!
Silly legislation such as this really harms no one but it does point out the amount of frivolous law-making which is done in a “feel good” by the legislator or an attempt to show us that they “really care.” Too bad that they don’t seem to care about the rank and file of the populace instead of special interest groups.
In sharp contrast with the silly laws are those like the “values act” which has already resulted in death and injury to Califor- nia citizens — the most recent episode being right here in Tulare County. That inane bit of action — also known as Senate Bill 54, was quickly passed to send a message to the new president as to who was really the boss in California.
Our state government’s insistence on resisting the president at all costs has resulted in the release of criminal aliens back into the population without advising Immigration and Customs Enforce- ment. In an attempt to publicly spite the man who was elected to run our country, our local elected officials decided to release criminals — who aren’t even citizens — back into our population to wreck havoc on the citizenry. That single bit of idiocy has already resulted in death, injury and property crimes that were avoidable.
This law even goes so far as forbidding cooperation between law enforcement in California and federal immigration authori- ties. The making of law is fine if there is an area in need, but it should never be done in such a capricious manner as displayed by our Democrat masters in Sacramento. We urge those legislators to consider the Hippocratic Oath, to which medical doctors swear to, first of all, do no harm. In the rarified air of the State Capitol, these folks seem to quickly lose touch with the reasons they were elected in the first place.
Add this to the well-cloaked ballot initiatives — Propositions 47 and 57 — in which the people were lied to and tricked into pass- ing, which reduced felonies to misdemeanors and expedited the release of some really bad people back to the streets so they could continue to ply their trade.
With the current standard of “how much legislation have you passed or authored” being the one which legislators have sub- scribed, one shouldn’t expect any improvement. Short of common sense, research and thought there seems to be little hope for im- provement because our politicians seem incapable of such basics requirements. Welcome to California!
However, one area which they refuse to address that has gotten out of control is social media. It seems that such a simple act as declaring that those who claim status as a platform for messag- ing would be identified as publishers would bring them under the same guidelines as real publishers. Having to deal with libel claims would put a stop to a lot of the current garbage.
But, as always, that’s only one man’s opinion.
By Glenn A. Marsch
Guest columnist
On Christmas Eve, 1968, three hu- mans in the cramped Apollo 8 command module slingshot around the moon. They were the first human beings ever to be in the gravitational sphere of influ- ence of another celestial body. While in lunar orbit, the astronauts recited the first 10 verses of Genesis 1, and Com- mander Frank F. Borman II ended the message to earth by saying, “And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas and God bless all of you—all of you on the good earth.”
The decision to launch Apollo 8 may well have been the most ambi- tious and dangerous of the entire lu- nar program. And it had broader cul- tural significance because humans would never see their own world in the same way—our delicate planet was but a tiny azure-and-white life- bearing drop in the expanse of space.
The tragic Apollo 1 cabin fire during a test in January 1967 led to the deaths of three astronauts. They were training in the command mod- ule, and an electrical fire, abetted by an oxygen-rich capsule atmosphere, quickly burned and asphyxiated the astronauts. Their deaths threatened to delay the lunar landing to beyond 1970, the deadline set by President John F. Kennedy several years before.
The command module, which the astronauts would live in during their flight to and from the moon—and in which the pilot would live in orbit while the astronauts were walking on the moon—had to be extensively rede- signed and rebuilt for safety by North American Aviation. In the meantime, Grumman Aircraft was designing the lunar lander, a tricky prospect. In space flight the important issues are mass, mass, and mass—how to reduce it. The lunar module had an angular appear- ance because so much was cut from it in order to reduce the mass. Seats and most windows—gone. In some places the skin of the lunar lander was just 0.015 inches thick, about the thickness
of a soda can. Construction of the lu- nar lander was behind schedule, but the redesigned command module was completed and ready for flight.
The manager for the Apollo Space- flight Program Office was George Low, an immigrant from Austria. Low was an engineer as much as an administrator, and in many ways Apol- lo 8 is his story, though it is not well known today. The astronauts trusted his judgment explicitly it was his tireless effort that made the Apollo 8 circumlunar mission possible. Origi- nally the Apollo 8 mission was to test the docking of the lunar lander to the command module in earth orbit. But the lander wasn’t ready. Few were thinking about a flight to the moon.
But George Low was. In August 1968, Low pressed NASA for an am- bitious mission all the way to the moon to test the command module, but with- out the lunar lander. In one shot we went from low-earth orbit all the way to the moon.
As Commander Frank Borman, James Lovell, and William Anders lift- ed off from Cape Canaveral Dec. 21, 1968, they knew they were on a dan- gerous mission. Two-and-a-half hours into the mission, they heard from Mi- chael Collins, the CAPCOM: “Apollo 8: You are GO for TLI” (trans-lunar in- jection). The third-stage engine-burn commenced on time, accelerated the command and service modules to over 23,000 mph, and over two days later the astronauts reached the gravita- tional sphere of influence of the moon. They had truly left earth.
Fifty years have gone by and most of the Apollo astronauts are dead. But they accomplished what their country had tasked them to do. At that point we knew we would put boots on the moon before the Soviets did. Their vi- sionary rocket genius Sergei Korolev was dead; their massive five-stage N-1 rocket had blown up four times. Some of those who worked for NASA saw
Apollo as providing an impetus for space exploration. But many didn’t. William Anders saw his duty to beat the Russians to the moon. In the end, that mission is what supplied the fund- ing for the Apollo program.
Apollo had political aims and was not primarily about space exploration. It was a non-violent battlefield in the Cold War, a test of geopolitical will that the United States ultimately won. Though public approval of the ambi- tious program generally didn’t exceed 50 percent, the Apollo program was briefly popular after Apollo 11, when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon. It was a magnificent achieve- ment — you’d have to be dour and sour not to be in awe of it. But NASA consumed 4.4 percent of GDP and it grated on a lot of people — conserva- tives and liberals alike — to spend that much. Now NASA spends just 0.5 per- cent of the national budget.
Many who saw Apollo as ushering in a new era of human space explo- ration have been disappointed. This writer is one of them. As a seven-year- old, I considered the live broadcasts of the Apollo 8 mission one of the best Christmas presents I ever got, and I remember it vividly. But there is a new class of entrepreneur, like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, committed to sending humans into space. Each has a different vision. But it’s their vision, and they don’t care too much about public opinion. In January 2019, SpaceX will conduct a demonstration flight of its new capsule, Dragon 2, which will loft from Cape Canaveral atop a Falcon 9 Block 5 booster. Drag- on 2 is human-rated, and soon it will ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. It has been over seven years since America could launch a human being into space. Perhaps the drought will be over soon.
Glenn A. Marsch is a professor of physics at Grove City College where he teaches physics and an innova- tive course, Studies in Science, Faith and Technology. He is a contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values.
Fred Hall
Jon Earnest’s column will return next week.
Road to ruin: Donald Trump’s Middle East retreat
By Mel Gurtov
Guest columnist
The flight of the gener- als is now complete with the resignation of General James Mattis — the last of the four generals to de- part, and the last to give up the naïve belief he could bring sanity and order to the White House. Mattis refused President Donald Trump’s request to endorse the Syria withdrawal. His resignation letter shows, however, that more than Syria prompted it: “My views on treating allies with respect and also be- ing cleareyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held,” he wrote.
Some outcomes of the force withdrawals are fairly predictable. Turkey will be free to attack US Kurdish allies. Bashar al-Assad will have further opportunity to brutally impose his will over resistance forces, with Iran’s and Russia’s help and without fear of US counter- action. Israel and Saudi Ara- bia may now have license
Other Opinions
to intervene in Syria or fur- ther squeeze Iran, widen- ing the zone of contest. US partners farther afield will have further evidence that Trump cannot be trusted to act rationally—in fact, can- not be trusted, period.
Trump will crow that he has kept his promise, saved a bundle of money, and brought the boys home in keeping with “America First.” (“We’re rebuilding other countries while weak- ening our own,” he said in the first major foreign-pol- icy speech of his 2016 cam- paign.) But his rationale may not go over well with Republicans in Congress who are already smarting over Trump’s kowtowing to the Saudis in the Khashoggi affair and now are saying he has made a major error (Rubio) and acted dishonor- ably (Graham). Trump has overplayed his hand, not so much because of the with- drawal of US forces as be- cause he has once again re- vealed how ego, arrogance,
and impulsiveness drive his decision making. There was no process behind his decision, no consulting with his top national security advisers or anyone else, no weighing of consequences, no exit strategy.
Trump’s withdrawal de- cisions put Democrats in a difficult position. Progres- sives might well applaud the idea of force withdraw- al from losing efforts even while criticizing the lack of a strategic rationale for doing so. Their problem is offering a credible alterna- tive to inevitable accusa- tions that they favor “cut and run.” Establishment Democrats are more likely to condemn the withdraw- als outright, arguing that they are a gift to the Rus- sians and an affront to al- lies, including Israel. Their problem is backing endless war—Obama’s dilemma. Both groups will have to decide how to handle the Mattis resignation. After all, he was no dove; to the contrary, as his letter in- dicated, he wanted the ad- ministration to focus on
getting tough with China and Russia, the chief US ad- versaries, while sustaining war-making in Syria and Af- ghanistan. Hardly a position that liberals or progressives should stand behind.
There are no winners, here or abroad, in Trump’s decision. But there are im- portant losers: innocent lives and prospects for peace. However remote a political settlement in Syria and Afghanistan might have been before, it is even more remote now. With the US largely out of the picture, incentives for adversaries— Syria and Russia in Syria, the Taliban in Afghanistan— to negotiate war-ending or at least violence-reduction agreements are now gone. Civil war is likely to gain intensity. Civilian casualties and refugee numbers will rise substantially. A new re- gional war is possible. The defeat of peace should be the focus of critics’ concern.
Mel Gurtov, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Profes- sor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University.
QUOTE
“Perhaps the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not.”
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)