We choose to go to the Moon... or not...
01/27/10
Since he uttered the famous words promising to put a man on the moon before the end of the century, the left has been using the moon landing as a justification for, well, just about everything.
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can provide universal health care to everyone!"
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can end global warming!"
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can get people to listen to left-wing talk radio!"
Ok, some where obviously more far reaching claims than others.
But none the less, these non sequitur claims are regularly made as if our moon landing accomplishment has any bearing whatsoever on progressive domestic policy prescriptions. And it is always absent any consideration of the actual feasibility of the claim.
But now, it appears that Obama doesn't even think we can put a man on the moon anymore:
NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead. So are the rockets being designed to take them there — that is, if President Barack Obama gets his way.
When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. The troubled and expensive Ares I rocket that was to replace the space shuttle to ferry humans to space will be gone, along with money for its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket that was to launch the fuel and supplies needed to take humans back to the moon.
There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.
Alright then. So be it.
I could make the argument that if we really wanted to land another mission on the moon and save money, we should probably have private firms work on the project and end NASA's monopoly over this field. But I digress from this clarity...
Does this at least mean we can drop all the other proposterous totalitarian proposals supported by the historically inept "we put a man on the moon" rhetoric?