The beautiful, violent world awaiting the Artemis II's return
By: Yahoo News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Shortly before the four-person crew of Artemis II crossed behind the moon Monday and briefly lost contact with NASA's Mission Control, pilot Victor Glover, quoting the Bible, urged humanity to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. "To all of you down there on Earth and around Earth, we love you, from the moon," Glover said. Forty minutes later, with its signal restored, the crew made history as it reached nearly 252,760 miles from this planet, the farthest human beings have ever traveled.
Most days, the vastness of space has no appeal to me over the comforts of the Earth. But the following morning, as I stared at my phone in disbelief, I grew jealous of the astronauts who were away from it all on that mission to orbit the moon.
What a juxtaposition: Trump's threat to obliterate an ancient land with the awe-inspiring images of Earth being beamed back from the Orion spacecraft.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again," President Donald Trump wrote on social media Tuesday morning, referring to Iran and its people. The previous evening, Trump had warned that "the entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night." His threats hung over everything like a miasma Tuesday, embedding in our brains and setting our nervous systems on edge.
What a juxtaposition: Trump's threat to obliterate an ancient land with an astronaut's reminder of an ancient commandment to love our neighbors — and with the awe-inspiring images of Earth being beamed back from the Orion spacecraft. One photo, which captured our world in all its splendor, was taken by mission leader Reid Wiseman and titled "Hello Earth." The astronauts also captured the majesty of a solar eclipse with the Earth passing between them and the sun.
Contrast the warmongering happening far below with the moment when Canadian crew member Jeremy Hansen told Mission Control that the crew intended to bestow the name "Carroll" upon an unnamed moon crater, in honor of Wiseman's late wife. Microgravity made it easier for the rest of the crew to surround Wiseman in an embrace, a poignant moment of human connection tens of thousands of miles from the nearest living thing.
In Trump's genocidal vow, our barbarity as a species was made bare. How stark the contrast to Glover's words from space: "In all of this emptiness — this is a whole bunch of nothing, this thing we call the universe — you have this oasis, this beautiful place that we get to exist in together."
From the crew's vantage point on the other side of the moon, Wiseman snapped a photo of the Earth, the shadow of the moon rendering it a crescent. Titled "Earthset," the image now forms a matched pair with "Earthrise," one taken by the crew of Apollo 8 in 1968.
"We set out to explore the moon and instead discovered the Earth," Bill Anders, the astronaut who took "Earthrise," wrote in 2018.
Someday, some future crew of astronauts may find themselves as far out as the Voyager I satellite when it sailed out of the solar system in 1990. As it departed the outer edge of the invisible boundary tying us together with our neighbors around the sun, more than 13 years after first leaving, Voyager's camera was turned homeward one last time to share its parting view.
In "the Pale Blue Dot," the Earth is a tiny, blue-tinged pixel in a sea of black, barely discernable from the stars thousands of light-years away. Astronomer Carl Sagan looked at that tiny pinpoint and asked us to think of "the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot."
The crew of Artemis II reminded us that we must appreciate this fragile oasis we've been granted.
When Trump abruptly changed course Tuesday evening, agreeing to a ceasefire just hours before his prime-time deadline for Iran's surrender, a weight lifted. The war may not be over, but the promised carnage had been averted — for now. It left me with a modicum of hope for the world the crew would find upon their return.
Artemis II's capsule is due to set down in the Pacific Ocean on Friday afternoon near San Diego. We can hope it won't be the last lunar mission that NASA undertakes, especially with the boost in interest in the space program Artemis has driven. But in any case, as mission specialist Christina Koch pledged, "Ultimately, we will always choose Earth. We will always choose each other."
As previous astronauts have done before them, the crew of Artemis II reminded us that we must appreciate this fragile oasis we've been granted. In bravely facing the cold vacuum of nothingness, the four humans on that spacecraft carried the warmth humanity holds with them. And by briefly becoming more alone than anyone has ever been, they served as a reminder that we can face the darkness together.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
While describing Trump's vow as genocidal puts it in the category of hyperbole, it should be noted that this is just one example among billions that happen every single day. From Iran's constant terrorism-by-proxy, the kid who shoplifts, the road rager, the rumor spreader and every other example anyone could easily come up with. In other words, Trump isn't the point here. What humanity is as a whole, is. It's always been much easier to be the worst in us rather than the best.
This is NOT a message that should ever be communicated by a PotUS in his capacity as voice, face, and hand of the people of the USA.
Surely you recognize that a threat to wipe out an entire civilization is among the worst threats made by leaders. And the UN would not agree with your view that this is not a threat of genocide:
The fact that others make threats as bad or worse than this does not lessen the severity and significance of Trump's threat.
No, Trump IS the point. The PotUS just threatened to kill an entire civilization. Forget about philosophical arguments for the moment and focus on what has actually taken place in our nation. We elected a lunatic, and that lunatic just threatened to kill an entire civilization. It does not matter if others do this or worse. It does not matter that he did not (yet) take any action on this threat. What matters is that the president of the USA is a dangerous loose cannon who is entirely unfit for office.
The saddest part of this is that is completely obvious, and has been so for a long time. Still the excuses and denials and gaslighting.
[✘]
[✘]
I will remind you of the title of the seeded article:
So, are you saying Trump is responsible for all the bad things going on in the world? Are you suggesting that, if only we could get rid of Trump, all the violence would disappear and we'd just be left with the "beautiful world" part? And if so, how are you going to explain everything bad that happened prior to Trump? How about after Trump?
Whether you want to admit it or not, astronaut Victor Glover was almost certainly not thinking of Trump when he made the statements he did. In the quote from Carl Sagan that JR posted? Same thing. It was the opposite of focusing on the details and looking at the bigger picture. To be far enough away from the trees to see the forest.
Okay. Aside from the fact that Trump's threat was also hyperbole, by that reasoning, WWII was us trying to genocide Germany and Japan? We essentially ended their civilizations, which were replaced by new ones. Neither Germany nor Japan are the countries they were after we destroyed them.
So, whether or not Trump should have said what he did, do you actually, truly believe he intends a genocide of any kind for Iran? Or does he more likely mean he's going to bomb them back into the stone age like we did with Germany and Japan if they're willing to FAFO?
Did you read the article?? Did you even read the characteristic quote?:
It is one sentence; the blue part is really an important part of it ... not to be ignored.
Of course not.
Of course not.
Glover did not write the article. The author quoted Glover to make a stark comparison to the sick lunatic who has control of the US military.
You just refuse to acknowledge the significance of a PotUS publicly threatening to wipe out an entire civilization. How can you do this??
Good grief man, I have not suggested that going to war = genocide. Come on, Drakk, your attempts to misunderstand what I write are getting truly ridiculous now. I clearly have been referring to Trump's threats to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran. Did you even read my closing paragraph?:
There is a profound difference between bombing enrichment and armament facilities to hobble a worldwide menace and a threat to kill an entire civilization.
We did not intend to nor did we actually engage in killing their entire civilization. Also, even if we had (which we clearly did not) wanted to and attempted to wipe out the German civilization or the Japanese civilization, that would not, in any way, justify Trump's public threat of wiping out the entire Iranian civilization.
Good grief Drakk, WTF?
Yeah, which means he missed the point behind what Glover made and, instead, bent it into something the opposite of what it was intended to mean in order to get a dig in on Trump. And, apparently, I'm supposed to be all up in arms over just how bad Trump is when, to my mind, I find nothing that is particularly worse than what the Democratic party is doing to our own country. In fact, if you want to talk about what's bad for our country, Trump doesn't hold a candle to the Democratic party.
Don't you find it strange that you always have to resort to claiming we're misunderstanding what you write all the time? Either you are a terrible communicator or you're just gaslighting. Guess which I'm voting for?
And, once again, there's a difference between a real threat and hyperbole. I ask you again, whether he should have said it or not, do you honestly think Trump means he's actually going to erase Iran off the map, along with all the people? Or do you think he just means he's going to destroy all their infrastructure and move them closer to the stone age? And be honest.
Right. I suggest you do a little research concerning the firebombing of places like Tokio, Dresen, Berlin and other such cities, where the goal was not simply military targets, but to kill as many civilians as possible. Of course, they don't actually state that as the specific goal, but if you read between the lines, it's an unavoidable conclusion.
But whatever. The point is that the UN definition of genocide is just as much nonsense as the UN itself is, because by their definition, we committed genocide in WWII. At least, according to what you yourself provided. Russia is trying to genocide Ukraine and Ukraine is trying to genocide Russia, since both sides are enthusiastically violating points 1 through 3 provided by you.
Agreed. One is a verified event and the other is hyperbole. Were it otherwise, why would there currently be a cease fire? Why aren't we moving sufficient assets into the region to conduct a genocide? Where are all the B52 bombers ready to flatten cities?
Kind of wondering the same about you, TiG. What happened to your rationality?
Never ceases to amaze me how some folks can make comments like:
and
And make it about Trump so folks that don't read very carefully will think the astronauts are making comments about Trump. Of course that is what the authors of this type of drivel are hoping for.
Weird, I feel exactly the same about the Republican party. Trump is the worst President of all time and the fact that rightwing conservatives don't realize that proves how fucked in the heads the lot of them are.
That is what he said he would do. Why should Americans have to "read between the lines" and try to rationalize that what the President just said was just a bunch of hyperbole that we can just ignore and laugh off as maybe a funny joke. Fuck any American who thinks that is the way an American President should talk or behave.
LoL. That's rich coming from the guy who is arguing that somehow our involvement in WW2 where we were attacked first is equivalent to starting a war of choice with Iran and then threatening them with genocide. I mean you'd have to be one really fucking stupid ignorant partisan dumb fuck to try and make that equivalence. Either that or have one's head shoved so far up Trumps ass it has cut off the blood to the brain, which does match the symptoms I see most MAGA exhibiting.
It's not and we didn't. You can have your sad little whiny Trump defending position on this debate, but it will always be wrong no matter how much you want to believe it.
For you to question TiG's rationality is one of the funniest things I think I've heard all month. Thanks for the laugh.
Well now you want to criticize the author because he was critical of Trump. At least now you have read the article.
Yeah I picked up that your mindset is predominantly partisan. The Ds are so bad that no matter what Trump does, it is just fine.
So you have no problem whatsoever with the PotUS publicly threatening the war crime of wiping out an entire civilization.
I think I will change my characterization from predominantly partisan to blindly partisan.
What I find strange is your ability to take clear language from me and 'interpret' it in a manner that in many cases is the opposite of what I wrote. The problem is you, not me. I just proved that in my last post.
I repeated my original closing summary in my last post, and you still have the gall to say that I was not clear. The level of dishonesty in your posts is staggering.
The point, Drakk, is that the PotUS —the guy who is the face, hand, and voice of our nation— just did something outrageous and unprecedented. No PotUS has ever publicly threatened to commit the extraordinary war crime of wiping out an entire civilization. (And note, this lunatic made this threat merely over opening up a critical economic waterway.) It does not matter what level of exaggeration Trump might have employed; the words of the individual in charge of the most powerful military on the planet carry great weight. Especially if that individual is a loose cannon. Trump has single-handedly changed the perception of the USA for decades and wasted decades of international political capital.
The USA is not a rogue nation that will wipe out entire civilizations. That is not who we are. But Trump has turned the USA from trying to be the leader of the free world into a world threat. A nation not to be trusted and arguably, to be feared.
And you think the Ds have done worse. Just amazing (and sickening).
There is a profound difference between attacks on cities (even if killing civilians was part of the strategy to break down morale) and killing a civilization! Further, as I noted earlier, none of this justifies targeting civilians. And certainly does not justify killing an entire civilization. So tossing out examples of bad things the USA has done in the past is a pathetic attempt to defend Trump. You know, two wrongs and all that.
You are trying to defend Trump's unprecedented and outrageous public threat to kill an entire civilization over a critical economic waterway. To defend a lunatic who started a war for unclear reasons and wound up painting the USA into a corner, and then lashed out with a sick threat that makes the USA look like a rogue nation to be feared.
Read this again, Drakk. Carefully. Imagine what other PotUS would publicly post such insanity:
And you think I am the one who has lost rationality??
The article makes it about Trump. Read the article. You are trolling.
Your comment is irrelevant to mine.
Read my comment. Carefully this time. I am talking about the author and authors like him.
You really don't see an article about Trump that begins with the astronauts and a title about them is disingenuous?
The article is about Trump. That is what I noted.
You are objecting that the author is criticizing Trump and using a good event as a reference point.
2.1.7 stands and it is a valid comment and opinion, not trolling.
I regret putting a thoughtful article in front of NT Magas. The article has a CLEAR viewpoint that is easily discerned from the text. It does not at all imply the astronaut was talking about Trump.
Do you believe the author is wrong to note the contrast between the beautiful world as seen through the eyes of astronauts and the unnecessary damage that Trump has and continues to cause?
Do you even see the problem with Trump, as PotUS, threatening to wipe out an entire civilization?
The article is an opinion piece and of course you are welcome to post it. I can call it out as being disingenuous as I did. He did not have to have (and should not have had IMO) astronaut quotes as part of it in hopes of getting people to read an article that has very little (if anything ) to do with the Artemis trip.
And judging by the comments from the left, that is exactly what he got.
Orange man bad....no matter the subject.
Um, the criticism was already implied in my original post, TiG. Guess you missed it, though.
Right. I'd like to see you take what I have actually said, rather than the straw man you're pushing, to make this case.
Same again. Make the case, other than I don't exhibit the proper ideological purity you ascribe to.
I suppose you're going to use the extensive posts I've written or articles I've posted proclaiming the glorious virtues of the Republican party against me. Oh, wait. They don't exist. I wonder what you'll use to make your case, then? Just go with the ideological purity test again?
Pretty sure your own opinion on this would not be the basis of proof.
Where did I say you were not clear? I understood exactly what you said. You, on the other hand, made the claim:
I made no claim that you were not being clear. You made the claim I intentionally made "attempts to misunderstand" what you wrote and then excoriated me for dishonesty. Now you are manufacturing claims in order to continue your nonsense.
Do you understand that what you say here is simply your point of view on the subject and nothing more? For instance, some think that Iran, as far as it concerns their government, has been a syphilitic chancre on the human race, spending all their treasure on trying to infect the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world with their brand of hate. They wonder why the world just puts up with it and see this as something that needs to be done before Iran gets stronger. Like maybe they should have done with Germany before Hitler got frisky.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that, even though Trump is going about it like the narcissistic idiot with some good ideas but terrible execution, business as usual isn't doing the US any favors and something else needs to be done. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact that we aren't predictable at the moment is its own kind of power, considering it's the US and not a country like Tonga. Who knows what will come out of it? No one. Not in the long term.
Still going with it being literal, huh? Well, you go with that. I'm not going to waste my time on it anymore. So, if you like, waste your time talking about it but I'm just going to ignore it.
SO, NOW TO WHAT IS TRULY IMPORTANT
I posted that what the author of the article posted about Trump misses the point of what Glover said. I implied that we are all the problem. From the least act of evil to the greatest, it is collectively a human problem. YOU, TiG, got all bent out of shape because my post takes the spotlight off of Trump and puts it on us all. Why? Because, based on your apparent infatuation with Trump, you cannot tolerate anything that doesn't sufficiently demonize Trump.
So, you're welcome to your opinions. Unless you've got something meaningful and, I'll add accurate this time, about something I've said, this is getting boring. Have a nice night.
Name this strawman you are claiming.
Make the case for what, exactly. Be specific.
You stated that you prefer what Trump is doing to what the Ds would be doing:
You accept even the outrageous behavior of Trump and profess that the Ds are worse than Trump. And you cannot see the blind partisanship? 'Anything but the Ds' is blind partisanship — especially when backed up by a stated preference to a tyrant who just threatened to wipe out an entire civilization. I made no mention of either party. I spoke of Trump. Consider that.
Be specific. Your posts have devolved into dishonesty and slimy tactics.
This has got to be one of the dumbest platitudes Trump supporters have been using. They think that pointing out that we are expressing our opinions / making our arguments is unusual or in some way wrong. This is the best you have to offer??
You cannot defend the rhetoric and acts of Trump so you do the typical tired dance of kicking the can down the road: Give it time. Who knows, casting the USA as an unpredictable, dangerous nation might turn out right.
Oh we just bombed the shit out of Iran, and they (big surprise) pulled out their Ace and closed the Strait of Hormuz and we do not have any ideas on how to fix that. Oh well, maybe it will turn out for the better. Just give it some time ...
More dishonest faux obtuseness. I have stated clearly that the threat itself is the problem! The fact that he was likely exaggerating and that he did not (yet) carry it out does not change the fact that NOW the USA has become a nation whose PotUS has threatened to wipe out an entire civilization over a critical economic waterway.
My point was and is: "This is NOT a message that should ever be communicated by a PotUS in his capacity as voice, face, and hand of the people of the USA."
Oh but that rhetoric might turn out for the better ... just give it some time ...
You falsely claim I am the one bent out of shape. I made a critical argument regarding your post. You are the one who is lashing out, engaging in dishonest tactics, etc.
Already did, TiG. I quoted it, in fact.
I think I was perfectly clear on it the first time. What about it is confusing you?
And where in that quote do I state I prefer one over the other rather than stating that one is far worse than the other? Fact is, I don't "prefer" Trump. There's no point to doing so, since my preferences don't matter. They're irrelevant. That's why I was careful to state it the way I did. That is, I can think Trump is bad, in some ways, while recognizing that the Democratic party is far worse.
Sure. Just go back and read the two sentences that preceded the quote you used here.
I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post as it is more petulant rant than anything else. In fact, all you're doing at this point is going after me and my views rather than discussing the article so I'm just going to consider this at an end. Try and have a good night.
Good grief man, you are contradicting yourself. You say that Ds are worse (bad) for the USA than Trump, but claim this does not mean you prefer Trump over the Ds. What?
That would mean you consider Trump better (not as bad) for the USA than the Ds but would prefer the Ds. You did not say equally bad; you declared an inequality. Thus, one is better by your declaration. This is the level of silliness you wish to stoop now? You are disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.
Your post was vague except for the part that I responded to. In the balance, you did not deliver quotes, just made abstract references. No doubt that was intentional.
Your posts have devolved into emotional spite. I applaud you for ending your pointless game.