America's Space Odyssey: Leader to Laggard

Millions worldwide watched the flickering images on television as a lunar lander hovered near the moon's surface. Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were shoehorned in the space vehicle frantically searching for a safe place to land among the moon's yawning craters and craggy rocks.

The task was made infinitely more intense after alarms rattled the silence in the space capsule.  Mission Control signaled the go ahead for landing after deciding a computer system overload tripped the alarms.  But the tension increased as a glowing gauge showed 18 seconds of fuel remaining.

With just seconds of precious fuel to spare, Armstrong toggled the craft to a smooth landing on the surface of the moon. Armstrong exhaled, smiled and then radioed: "Houston, Tranquility Base here.  The Eagle has landed."  It was exactly 4:18 p.m. on July 20, 1969, more than 50 years ago.

The main event began about six hours later when Armstrong, swaddled in a bulky, white spacesuit, opened the hatch of Eagle and slowly backed down a ladder.  As he descended, he switched on a TV camera.  At 10:56 p.m., his foot touched the surface of the moon to the cheers of millions.

This historic moment capped a eight-year-long effort by the U.S. to seize the lead in the race to space, eclipsing the Soviet Union.  This was more than "One step for man, one giant leap for mankind."  It was the crowning achievement of the 20th century for American ingenuity, vision and invention.

The space program ushered in a plethora of new technology, notably industrial computing which sparked the Digital Revolution.  How far have we progressed?  The computing power used on Apollo was two-millionths of one percent of the computing power of today's smartphones.  

Many predicted the successful mission would jump start a heroic era of manned exploration of the Cosmos, including landing on distant planets.  However, the space program suffered a run of near disasters and tragedies, including the 1986 explosion of the Challenger space shuttle.

As the years passed, what remained of NASA (National Aeronautical and Space Administration) shriveled from neglect and lack of funding. Manned space exploration was supplanted by robotic probes sent hurtling into space to glimpse the universe.  Not the stuff of legendary daring feats.

America has invested so little in its space exploration that today we depend on Russia to shuttle our astronauts to service the international space station.  While it's true that private investment by companies such as Space X has advanced rocket technology, government funding has fallen behind.

Meanwhile, China has stepped up efforts to dominate space travel and exploration, investing billions in infrastructure and nuclear powered rocket technology.  They have unveiled plans to build manned labs both on the moon and Mars.  China recently rocketed its first quantum satellite in orbit.

China became the third country after the U.S. and Russia to successfully perform a sea-based orbital launch in June, reports Reuters.  A rocket carrying seven satellites blasted off from a platform on a semi-submersible barge in the Yellow Sea.  The country also boasts three land-based launch sites.

Its ambitious plans include developing reusable, low-cost medium rockets along with super heavy-lift rockets expected to make their virgin flight in 2030.  At the same time, China is in the process of constructing a new space station, expected to be completed about 2022.

Tens of private Chinese firms have joined the race to develop rockets capable of delivering low-cost micro satellites with commercial applications.  Last month iSpace became the first privately funded Chinese firm to put satellites into orbit.  In China, private and government efforts are intertwined.

China has made it clear its goal is to rule space.  What will be America's response?  The bipartisan political alliance behind the Apollo mission was spurred by President John F. Kennedy's speech to Congress in 1961. Can today's politicians cobble a coalition to answer China's challenge?

The sharp divisions between the political parties and the White House offer faint  hope, especially when too few Americans care a wit about space exploration or China's determination to surpass the United States. It is dispiriting to watch what has happened to America's resolve to lead in space.

Unless the country awakens to the challenge, not only will the United States cede space exploration to China but our indifference will one day allow the Chinese to threaten American interests and values with a terrestrial platform to subjugate its enemies and achieve global dominance.

White Supremacy: The Truth Behind The Rhetoric

Politicians and the media have whipped up a frothy narrative about the explosive growth of white supremacy in the United States.  These co-conspirators hope to frighten Americans.  They understand fear is the enemy of truth.  However, the facts do not support their emotionally-charged rhetoric.

Before diving into the data, let me make it clear at the outset.  Hate in any form, including white supremacy, is evil.  Those who foment this malignant contagion are to be condemned.  We can't deny its existence.  Such wickedness has no place in America and it must be confronted. 

However, those who claim the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazi's and associated white supremacy groups are stealthily recruiting armies of disciples have no proof.  The FBI, Justice Department and other federal agencies have published no data on the these organizations.  Evidence simply does not exist.

Despite this fact, Democrats and the mainstream media want you to believe hoards of angry white men preaching racial purity are overrunning the country.  They point to the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 as an example of a virulent strain of white supremacy that is poisoning America.

In that incident, there were "about" 50 neo-Nazi's marching and chanting in the streets.  They were confronted by around 1,000 counter protesters.  A melee ensued because the state and local police failed to intervene quickly enough, according to a report by the City of Charlottesville.

Do 50 crackpots waving Nazi flags represent a clear and present danger to the United States? Hardly. No one sanctions hateful speech, but is a single incident a legitimate indicator that white supremacy is on the rise?  Of course not.  However, it is a siren call for vigilance to prevent another episode.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, certainly no conservative group, published data in 2016 that claimed there are "between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different and often warring organizations that use the Klan name." There are 323 million Americans.  Do the math.

In the report, the center estimated there were 130 KKK groups in the country in 2016.  According to its figures, the Klan has been in decline since 2010 when its numbers reached 221 loosely affiliated organizations.  This is a far cry from the Klan's presence in the 1920's.

Historians estimate there were between four-and-five million Klansmen during the 1920's.  Membership began to decline even into the 1960's when the KKK attracted whites opposed to civil rights legislation.  Best guesses are the Klan membership then was in the hundreds of thousands.

Some conspiracy theorists claim white supremacy has gone underground to avoid detection.  That is clearly not the case since there are websites and social media posts spewing the nefarious doctrine. Law enforcement officials believe most of the venom is coming from just a handful of individuals.

Journalists recently uncovered a 2006 FBI Bulletin that warned of the threat of white nationalists and skinheads infiltrating law enforcement as evidence the problem has been ignored.  There have been isolated cases of police being outed for their white supremacy views.  But nothing widespread.

Yet there must be acknowledgment that hate crimes are on the rise, according to FBI data.  Incidents increased 17% in 2017, the latest available figures.  But the agency noted there are more law enforcement agencies reporting hate crimes than in the past.  It may account for some of the increase.

There were 7,175 cases reported by 2,040 of the more than 16,100 law enforcement agencies that submitted data.  The majority (58.1%) were categorized as hate crimes targeting a person's race, ethnicity or ancestry, while religious bias was found in 22% of cases.

Digging deeper, you find that 48.8% of the race, ethnicity or ancestry crimes were anti-African-American, 17.5% were anti-white, 10.9% were anti-Hispanic, 5.8 percent were anti-Native American and 3.1% were anti-Asian.  Clearly, hatred respects no racial or cultural boundaries.

Even in a country with chasms of disagreement on issues surely we can stand together in opposition to all forms of hatred.  The lesson of Nazi Germany is a reminder that if hatred of races, religions or ethnicities festers there are deadly consequences.  It cannot be excused or condoned in America. 

Mass Shootings Solutions: Facts Over Emotion

Mass shootings traumatize the American soul.  The nation's emotions run the gamut from sorrow to moral outrage to steely resolve to stop the killings.  But before the last ambulance departed the latest scene of a slaughter, politicians weaponized the crisis to wage war on guns and the president.

The belligerent rhetoric and ugly name-calling on both sides of the issue of gun rights conflates a complicated problem.  Before a solution can offer hope of halting violence, there must be a reckoning of the root causes driving often troubled young people (males) to commit wanton murders.

While it's natural for raw emotions to surface after such a tragedy, no one should use victims as political pawns in a legislative chess game to pass hastily thought-out laws.  Solutions require a close examination of the facts and a clear-eyed focus on keeping Americans as safe as possible.

Since guns are often seen as the culprit instead of the shooter, let's start with some firearm facts from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Centers for Disease Control:

In 2017, the most recent statistics, there were 39,773 deaths by firearms, the highest annual total in decades.  You likely have read this headline in the news.  But do you know the reason for the hike? Sixty percent of gun deaths were self-inflicted.  Gun suicides are rising faster than firearm murders.

Yet no politician seems to care about the alarming rise of suicides.  Why are so many people killing themselves in a society with advantages few countries enjoy?  Why haven't we done more to find the answer?  Perhaps, it is because a single loss of life doesn't generate inflammatory political rhetoric.

In any massacre involving a rifle, the drumbeat for a ban on "assault" weapons is deafening.  Before entertaining this idea, politicians should consider that FBI data shows that five times more people are killed by "knives and cutting instruments" than rifles.  Should we consider outlawing knives?

Prior to plunging headlong into solutions, Congress needs more data on what motivates mass killings by young males.  The Parkland High School shooter was 19-years-old. The El Paso killer was 21.  The Dayton gunman was 24.  Unfortunately, not much data exists on young shooters.

However, a project funded by the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department, has been cataloguing the life histories of all mass shooters.  The work has produced a database of information going back to 1966 on every mass shooting in the United States.

The study found that the vast majority of mass shooters experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age.  That violence may have been physical or sexual abuse, parental suicide or severe bullying, often leading to depression, anxiety and other mental health issues.

In virtually every mass shooting there often is a trigger point, usually a identifiable crisis in the months and weeks leading up to the killing spree.  Another factor that motivates these heinous crimes is the perpetrators' fascination with the celebrityhood conferred by the media's coverage of shootings.

That's one reason mass shootings tend to come in clusters because the publicity often spurs others to act.  Their evil deeds are, if not celebrated, at least magnified on social media.  The prospect of notoriety in death appeals to young people who feel neglected, unimportant and isolated from society.

The mainstream media as well as the raw sewage posing as social media are never held accountable for their roles in contributing to the violence.  They hide behind freedom of the press but media platforms must be more responsible, reigning in their lurid coverage of shootings and the triggerman.

Studies such as the one cited earlier should serve as a starting point for dealing with the issue of mass shootings. Restricting or banning weapons will not end the killing if the nation fails to address the early warning signs of disturbing and often bellicose behavior of young males.

Turning to proposals, Pew Research found there are sharp divisions among Americans who identify as Republican or Democrat on gun policy.  However, there is some common ground among the groups.  That should be a starting point for Congress to make a bipartisan push for legislation.

There is near unanimous agreement that people with mental illnesses should be prevented from buying guns.  Most Americans concur that people on federal no-fly or watch lists should be barred from purchasing weapons.  Majorities favor background checks for sales at gun shows.

Although there general but not majority support for tightening background checks, there should be a way for politicians to hammer out a balanced approach that will make it less likely that someone unstable or emotionally disturbed with be able to legally acquire a firearm.

There is also budding support for so-called Red Flag laws that would allow local police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present danger to himself or others.  Currently, 13 states have passed some form of Red Flag law.

After the temporary removal of the weapons(s),  there is a court hearing.  The gun owner is allowed an opportunity to appear in court and contest the order.  A judge decides if the weapon will be permanently confiscated or returned. This due process ensures a fair and open proceeding.

Despite these common sense suggestions, some politicians and special interest groups will champion laws banning firearm ownership.  If only, killings were that easy to stop.  Illinois and California have two of the country's strictest gun control regimes, but the results show little or no impact.

In fact, although Illinois and California are home to about 16 percent of the nation's population, those two states account for more than 20 percent of the nation's handgun murders, according to FBI data. Those figures offer a sober assessment about the effectiveness of stricter gun laws.

The bloodshed of mass shootings sickens every American.  But it is no excuse to turn the gun debate into a bloodsport marked by a focus on gaining political power.  Americans want solutions not a rancorous sideshow of grandstanding and finger-pointing.  Victims and their families deserve better.

What's Behind the Census Questionnaire Fuss

Never in the 229 year history of the U.S. Census has the survey become such a radioactive political issue as the one planned in 2020.  Americans were exposed to the contaminant after the Trump Administration revealed it would include a citizenship question on the household sample.

When the decision was announced in March, it ignited an explosion of condemnation by the media and political opponents. Lawsuits followed rapid fire.  The issue ended up in the laps of the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 further study was required but did not reject the idea of a citizenship question.

This issue died a natural death but during the ruckus a swamp of misinformation oozed from the media, alleged fact-checkers and opponents that poisoned the national debate.  Facts were trampled in the stampede to disparage the Census question.  It is time to set the record straight.

The Census did include a question on citizenship for 130 years from 1820 to 1950 as part of the so-called short form survey.  Fact-checkers, such as the biased website Snopes which disguises itself as non-partisan, claim it was the absolute last time citizenship was ever raised in a Census survey.

That is a clever equivocation. It is true that the citizenship question is no longer on the short form.  However, the citizenship question continued to be part of the longer survey distributed to one in six American households through 2000.  It survives even today in another extensive Census survey.

After 2000, the Census Bureau initiated a new annual detailed study called the American Community Survey.  It goes to about 3.4 million people (about 2.6% of the population) and inquires about a person's citizenship.  It is false to contend the question is no longer asked of Americans.

Opponents' chief argument is including a citizenship question would result in an under count of Americans. Their contention is minorities (mainly Hispanics) would fear revealing their status. But apparently they have no problem with respondents being asked about their country of origin.

Today's short form Census contains a question about whether the respondent is of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Hispanic origin.  The survey does not inquire about country of origin for areas which are not Hispanic majority.  That smacks of discrimination.  Why no complaints?

Asking the question only of Hispanics logically might intimidate minorities, right?  Might people worry revealing their origin raises citizenship problems? If your country of origin is Mexico, in particular, wouldn't you be afraid to answer?  Not a peep from the ACLU over the issue.

What the media, opponents and fact-checkers fail to report is by law the Census information cannot be publicly disclosed or shared with government agencies including immigration enforcement.  The rule prevents revealing personally identifiable information until 72 years after the survey.

To make this crystal clear to partisan Democrats, even if the Trump Administration wanted to collect citizenship data to deport illegals in the country it would be illegal and certainly would be rejected by the courts.  Have you ever heard this fact reported in the mainstream media?  Crickets.

So why the hubbub about the citizenship question?   As often is the case in politics, this is about money and power.  The short form Census survey data is used to determine the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and for the allocation of certain federal funds.

According to Election Data Services, current population trends indicate the 2020 census will likely result in Texas and Florida seeing the biggest gains in seats.  Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Montana and Oregon will potentially add at least one House seat.

Meanwhile, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia will lose at least one seat.  New York may drop two seats.  California and Minnesota are each facing the possibility of losing up to a single seat.

Can you spot the trend here?  Many Blue States are looking at the political prospect of losing House seats and federal dollars.  A number of Red States will have a positive net change.  This entire rumble over the Census has nothing to do with privacy or protecting minority rights.  It is POLITICAL.

With a potential $675 million in federal funds and House seats up for grabs, Democrats want to jigger the Census results through the counting of illegal immigrants.  Like voter ID laws, the citizenship question preserves the integrity of the process.  Isn't that in every American's best interest?