In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: Obama’s Bow to Japanese Emperor, Joe Biden’s Motorcade, Chris Matthews, Professor Punches Woman’s Face, Lou Dobbs, CNN, NASA, President Bush, Gold, Flavor Flav, and Mel Gibson.

[This dispatch was written by me in December 2008 in southern Afghanistan. It was never published though I recently found it in the unpublished archives. The photos came from the same period.]

Published: from Nepal on 14 October 2009

On May 25, 1961, the President of the United States of America said:

“Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.”

And thanks to bold and visionary leadership, the collective intelligence, courage and commitment of Americans from coast to coast, America had seemed to achieve little more than a stunning list of public failures on the way to space. Our rockets exploded on the launch pad. In the air. Burned up on reentry. Or disappeared into solar orbit. But our grandparents never allowed us to be defined by our faults or failures; only how we greeted adversity. Failure after failure after failure. We got up and launched again, into failure. Fine astronauts were lost. And yet today, in 2008, after a dozen Americans have walked on the moon, citizens from no other nation have managed to land on the lunar surface. What inspiration kept the people at NASA going, when their early years were marked seemingly only by failure? The scientists, engineers and space pilots were living the American dream, not a dream of mere perfection, but of valiant and worthwhile effort. President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1910:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

And so I write these words from Afghanistan, as a grandchild of many great men and women who built “America” and bequeathed it to us. The challenges facing us in Afghanistan, and this region in general, are monumental. We have been failing in Afghanistan. We have been losing the war. But losing does not mean lost. Failing does not mean failed. Yet if we are to succeed in this endeavor, we must be realistic that putting people on the moon was more straightforward than lifting Afghanistan from the stone ages.

“Taming” this land and its human inhabitants into a civilized country will require great investments in time, resources, imagination and intelligence. Bringing Afghanistan out of the Stone Age is not a decade-long project; we are already seven years into the war, and it’s only getting worse. Some people say it will take two generations, but more realistically, a century will be needed. Afghanistan is not Iraq. This is a very primitive, almost lunar place. Yes, cocktail party correspondents can surf their way through meetings in Jalalabad, or Kabul, or Mazar-i-Sharif, and come home with reports of success. But they are wrong. And the counterinsurgency “experts” who come here on short trips, and fly home to America or Britain with poison dripping from their lips, spitting words that we are winning, are doing Great Britain, the United States, and our allies a great disservice. Those who came to Afghanistan with open eyes and open minds, and who are not afraid to jeopardize access or careers by reporting truth, will have clearly reported by early 2006 that we were losing ground here. Who are these “experts” who didn’t see this thing for what it was, early on? And now even in 2008, some people bring home messages that this place is not as bad as it really is. Yes, it’s true that we lost but one U.S. soldier to combat in Afghanistan in November of 2008, but we should not let this number confuse us. The Af-Pak war has great potential to devolve into something far worse than what we saw in Iraq. The “experts” who did not sound the alarm by at least 2006, that Afghanistan by then clearly was slipping through our fingers, are no more useful than a fire alarm with dead batteries. A fire alarm with dead batteries is far worse than merely useless. Let the counterinsurgency “experts” step forward, and show us that they put to writing several years ago what is today obvious. We need to know who to listen to, and who to ignore.

We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we cannot pretend this will ever be the Sea of Tranquility.

Our new President will need to demonstrate wisdom and resolve in dealing with Af-Pak. The peril might not yet be obvious, but the consequences are far too grave to ignore. Enemies of humanity are trying to pull India and Pakistan into war. Ignorance is their primary weapon, and Afghanistan is merely one battlefront. Most of these kids will remain illiterate, and the children of their children likely will not be able to read. Even if they were literate, there are few books available in languages such as Dari or Pashto. This kid in Zabul Province is already lost. Afghanistan will be doing well to get his sons and daughters into a school, but more realistically it will be his grandchildren that might first be reached. We must be realistic. America did not succeed in putting people on the moon by hiring mathematicians who could not expertly use the slide rule or correctly perform the math. America succeeded in part by hiring the best mathematicians, along with the best scientists and engineers of all sorts, who possessed powerful intellects, realistic imaginations, and a volatile intolerance for anything less than pure truth. They didn’t drink anyone’s Kool-Aid.

And so President Kennedy said, “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.” And they kept pushing through a painful series of dramatic failures, until, within that same decade, in 1969, the first words spoken from a man on the moon came beamed home to earth:

“Tranquility base here, the Eagle has landed.”

And soon astronaut Neil Armstrong was stepping off the ladder, and he said, “That’s one small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.”

Hard never meant impossible.

The war is intensifying month by month while support for this mission plummets. Your help is crucial to my staying in the war. 2010 will almost certainly prove to be the bloodiest even as coverage dries up. More troops are coming in. The fighting for those who are here is already as tough as any seen in Iraq. Do you trust the Government to tell the truth? Please donate today.

In this episode, “NewsBusted” covers: President Obama, the Federal Deficit, Nancy Snyderman, ObamaCare, NASA, Cap and Trade, Global Warming, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Billie Jean King, and North Korea.

Moon rocks the imagination as it presents a totally plausible, realistic way of utilizing space for practical purposes — in this case, mining for eco-desirable Helium 3 energy from the lunar surface.  Jones strove for science-fact over fiction in researching many minute details of the script.  He even screened the film before a panel of NASA scientists — many of whom are working on making fantasy into fact. 

Before reading any further — be advised: don’t see Moon to learn about science, but DO see it! It’s a fascinating film featuring an Academy Award-worthy performance by Sam Rockwell. 

Now, back to reality… In 2004, President George W. Bush called for a return to the Moon to build a base — it would be a prelude to something even greater: a mission to Mars.  He noted words from astronaut Eugene Cernan, who traveled with the last Apollo mission: “We leave as we came and, God willing, as we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” With that, scores of engineers, scientists and experts made headway designing, building and planning America’s next endeavour to explore space, they were ready to accomplish the mission. 

Should President Obama decide to continue with the 2004 Bush plan, enterprising Americans would need to invent many of the things featured in Jones’ film.  And for Obama, who is presiding over one of the worst economic crisis in history, an invigorating Kennedy-esque call to space would present a granddaddy of a stimulus package — jobs created, factories built, innovation; to say nothing of stimulating the truly priceless things like learning, inspiring a generation and advancing the species. 

But don’t pack your moon boots quite yet – Obama has organized a committee to review the entire space program and make recommendations sometime in August. He has left many to guess his agenda for America’s space program.  What would have happened if Columbus or Magellan stood around waiting for a group of consultants to return findings?  Thank goodness President Kennedy didn’t wait to hear committee recommendations of his idea — we would have never made it to the Moon.  So, we’re left to wait — along with the rest of NASA — while this committee discusses, studies and contemplates.  Call it the community organizer’s guide to the galaxy …  it just might get us going nowhere fast. 

Moon writer-director Jones is a self-described sci-fi nut having been inspired as a child by great films such as Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 and Ridley Scott’s Alien.  Those films, like many other 60’s, 70’s and 80’s sci-fi fare, helped feed the world’s growing appetite for all things space — I know, because my younger brother and I grew up in the Lucas/Spielberg-golden age of sci-fi.  With the 1969 Moon landing, and the Apollo missions thereafter, a huge milestone was met, and imaginations exploded — people wanted to learn what else could be ‘out there?’ How could we travel into space in the future? What would life in space be like? 

Moon portrays the same questions NASA faces building a moon base, or traveling to Mars — loneliness, mental stamina, human endurance.  To say nothing of imagining real-life possibilities such as fusion power, mining for clean energy and living in artificial environments (as well as some truly mind-blowing plot twists). 

It should come as little surprise that Jones thought up this film.  After all, he is the son of David Bowie — the man who gave us “Space Oddity” and Ziggy Stardust.  Bowie was fascinated by humans landing on the Moon and translated that into brilliant art and music.  Come to think of it, without the Moonshot, we never would have Elton John’s “Rocket Man,” cell phones, microwave ovens — or juice bags for the kids!  The demonstration of American grit and ingenuity instilled the nation with pride, confidence and solidified American technology and willpower as the envy of the world.  We could use a little bit of all that right about now… 

So, what will it be President Obama: One giant leap… forward or backward?

The scam–ur uhm–I mean the idea works like this: government will set a limit on the amount of CO2 companies may produce. Companies will then be forced to purchase emissions permits for every ton of CO2 produced. Companies that exceed their limits will be able to purchase or trade for additional permits with companies that emit less than their allotted cap. Waxman-Markey seeks an “80 percent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050”?  And a “100 percent auction to ensure every ton of carbon is paid for.”

While supporters of Cap and Trade attempt to direct our attention to large-scale carbon emitters in the coal and oil industries make no mistake; the repercussions from this tax will be felt in every American household.

The Congressional Budget Office noted that cutting carbon emissions just 15% would result in customers facing “persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.” This conclusion is echoed by the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, which further determined that Waxman-Markey will reduce GDP by $9.6 trillion, increase the federal debt by 26%, kill 1.1 million jobs, increase peak year unemployment to 2.5 million workers and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

Of course what is a little economic hardship if it means saving the sky from falling?

Every day new scientific discoveries emerge calling into question the computer models on which this carbon hysteria is based.

Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center realized the models rely on mathematical equations derived more than 80 years ago. These differential equations ignore proper boundary conditions and assume an atmosphere that is infinitely thick. Miskolczi derived a new solution using the proper boundary conditions (the atmosphere is 65 miles thick) and viola no more global warming.

There is also a new study conducted by the university of Wisconsin and the US National oceanic and atmospheric administration, which concludes that 70% of the sharp temperature rise in the North Atlantic over the last 30 years is due to dust blowing out to sea from the deserts of North Africa – A small detail the computer models failed to account for.

What is more remarkable is that, even assuming some human component, if Waxman-Markey meets all its goals of reducing carbon emissions, the EPA calculates that the impact on world temperature would be no more than two-tenths of a degree Celsius at the end of the century. Found here

That is a lot of pain for very little gain.

But Global warming is not about science it is about politics and this administrations choice to ignore facts is about a political means to social control. The President’s own lawyers admit as much.

Three weeks ago Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) produced a white house memo to the EPA that, in his words, repeatedly suggests “a lack of scientific support for this proposed finding” [that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health]. Barrasso then quoted directly from the document, “making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities.” If that’s not change you can believe in I don’t know what is.

There is an old joke that if the government could it would tax the very air that we breathe. As social commentary Waxman-Markey’s assumption that we can save the planet by taxing CO2 – a substance every human being emits with every breath taken–is absurd indeed. It’s also an old joke that is not very funny.

Last month’s launch failure of the Vegan 7 from the Alcatraz launch facility was the latest of 16 straight disappointments for the United States space agency. Chief NASA administrator and former chiropractor Tammy “Sunshine” Peeks, was particularly “bummed” about the launch failure.

“Wow, we really thought we had it goin’ on…“ Peeks admits, “I mean, like we were told by our science guys that the whole baking soda and vinegar thing was happening, right? I mean, 6500 pounds of baking soda was supposed to blow it right into orbit. Crap.”

Ms. Peeks and her NASA scientists made international headlines for their highly touted claim that they could “make an ecologically sensible, cruelty free, ‘peaceship’ that won’t be bombing imaginary enemies, and won’t screw with our freakin’ atmosphere.” 

“Vinegar and baking soda – help us take OUR planet over!  

Vinegar and baking soda – help us take OUR planet over!” 

…chanted Peeks at her insanely short Senate confirmation hearing last year. The combustible eco-friendly chemical mix, cum space policy statement – was her mantra for over one half an hour (most times holding up a “V For Vinegar” sign with her fingers). Sadly, after last month’s accident, this chant rang bitterly hollow; as 27 white ‘free range’ mice drowned to death in the bubbly and smelly solution. 

“I would never kill, eat or exploit anything with a face okay?” Peeks answered defensively. “Look, the mice were innocent bystanders that just happened to live around the rocket. We have a beautiful ‘life circle’ of animals on the island, and the mice were just fulfilling their nature. What can I say? We’re missing a cat also, so maybe the cat fulfilled his nature with the mice,… we can’t tell yet.“ 

A reporter pressed: “You mean you didn’t have any payload with either humans, animals or experiments in the rocket?” 

Peeks response: “Please…the empty payload is the payoff sir.” She continued, now pointing towards the sky: “We are making a statement here, you just aren’t getting it. NO MORE MAN-JUNK IN MOTHER’S SPACE, OK?  No more macho; ‘OH LOOK, WE CAN FLOAT OUT HERE FOR KICKS’ crap okay?”

“This sucked so freakin’ bad.” exclaimed NASA’s Space Numerologist/Environmentalist “Jagger Kyle Bangor.” “It seems the recycled cardboard, though over-the-top-major-tough reinforced, was not suitable for housing a booster rocket of that humongous size.” He added.

When asked why NASA would even consider housing a booster rocket of any kind in cardboard, Bangor replied: “It’s our weapon of mass INSTRUCTION amigo.  Our space is here brother and it’s crying out… can’t you hear it? It’s bad enough that we trash the ‘Mother’ man, but trashing the little green man’s ‘Mother’ ain’t cool either.”

Funding has now been called into question for the space agency. Last week several GOP senators called for immediate hearings into the matter. This morning at those hearings, Senators Joel (D-NY), and Springsteen (D-NJ). reverting to their former occupations. rocked their fellow senators with their new co-written song: “Space is Mahhhhhh Place!” 

The outcome was quite remarkable. A vast majority of the senators seemed so moved by the song they changed course and ended up roundly applauding Peeks for “fine work” and demanding NASA funding be tripled. However, before the conclusion of the hearings, California Senator Howie Mandel (R-CA), risking censure, caused a stir with the question: “What possessed NASA to paint a naked picture of George W. Bush on every fin of the rocket?” In response, Peeks gave this statement:

“First off, it’s not paint – it’s natural plant based dye, …to put it in your terms; think ‘Rose Parade’ okay? And if you don’t know why Bush is on the rocket then you are part of the damned problem, Senator.”

With that, Senators Springsteen and Joel spontaneously picked up their song once more to uproarious applause, and the entire committee room danced “conga” style out the hearing room doors.