To look beyond the tip of one’s political nose

I will cite an opinion piece published on the Editorial page of today’s edition (2012-02-11) of Hindustan Times titled Such a waste of space by one Anirudh Bhattacharyya as proof enough that getting yourself published on that page or others similar is no proof that you are sane. In this post I will make a number of counterpoints that will validate my above assertion.

The author certifies his competence to pronounce on space programs by mentioning that he has read Isaac Asimov and also quite unsubtly thumping his chest that he was “provided access to Building 9” at the Johnson Space Center at Houston. I would guess that it was a guided tour for the media types of the building that houses full size mockups of the shuttles and the International Space Station – mentioned by the author. This comes nowhere close to the implication of being “provided access”, by any stretch of imagination. But, being a scribe he sure can twist things around, and be caught so easily too! By this measure, every visitor to the Kennedy Space center should be a mission controller or a program manager!

What began as an impressive sounding “Building 9” in the first paragraph becomes a mere “hangar” in the second sentence, after the Shuttle program has been gutted by Barack Obama (by the way, the Shuttle was gutted by George W. Bush; but do not let truth intrude into a fantasy narrative; Obama scuppered the successor to the Shuttle, the Constellation – more on this later). Note the prominent mention of who killed off the program. There is no mention of the unedifying role of the diktat of the Republican controlled Congress that Obama could not have gone against – reduce the size of government, but no increase in taxes on the rich. How would the author admit to this, for he never claimed balance in his analysis? He is a political propagandist for the cause of the conservatives and this becomes clearer elsewhere.

More disgustingly, he appears to be an enthusiastic member of Newt Gingrich’s retinue. For Heaven’s sake, could he not have chosen someone better, even Santorum! But his sophistry has limits. Just read this sentence to understand that: to connect Isaac Newton and Newt Gingrich but without ever specifying who he is referring to! The lunar colony idea of Gingrich is “just the sort of grandiose idea that a guy called Newton could concoct.” Now, to this day and over the years, the number of times Gingrich has been referred to as Newton Gingrich, one could count with the fingers on one hand – it has always been Newt and only Newt, never Newton. So, what do you make of the author suddenly upping and throwing at you a new personality, at least by implication, a Newton Gingrich! Well, he claims to be fascinated by science (fiction, to be particular about it) and he is writing political fiction! Santorum does not jibe with Newton as Newt does! So transparent, is he not?

The author is very elastic in his arguments, and he has to be able to connect Gingrich and Kennedy, after trying his luck with Gingrich and Isaac Newton. He equates Gingrich’s begging bowl anthem in Florida, “You give me votes and I will give you jobs through the space program; a lunar colony (for lunatics, he could have added),” to Kennedy’s exhortation to America to beat the Soviets in the space race in the beginning of the ‘60s. Could anyone have descended any lower?

But the author manages that too, not unsurprisingly! It is as much Gingrich’s prerogative to do what he wishes with his marriages, and as is their wont the US media outlets to make fun of his supposed habits of hopping from one wife to another. Our author is a sensitive soul, you must understand and he shows his fealty to Gingrich by saying, “Kennedy did it; so, why can’t Gingrich?” I heard this line of argument in eighth standard, mid to late 1960s!

Some fresh and meaningful statements in this post, obviously not mentioned in the article under reference. The Space Shuttle had no set purpose, a basket of far out ideas, when it was conceived, except for a pie-in-the-sky thing about an orbiting space station, enabled by an on-demand cargo service. The Shuttle was a technology marvel, one must admit and the Americans must be proud of it. They extended the gap between themselves and the Russians (during the tenure of the Shuttle, the USSR became Russia!). But, the missions were not exactly confidence inspiring, the two major disasters that set back the program so severely. The feather in the program’s cap was the successful repair / retrofit of the Hubble Telescope. But, by the time it was scrapped the program could not justify itself economically, technologically or scientifically. It was justifiably marked for euthanasia.

Then came Bush’s proposal for Constellation, a human spaceflight program with the goals of gaining experience in operating away from Earth's environment, developing technologies needed for going beyond the moon, and as a nod to science, to support fundamental science. Old wine in a new bottle, the Shuttle admirers said. None of this could have excited a nation, particularly one that was reeling under an almost unprecedented financial and economic crisis. It was axed by Obama and that rankled our author, Mr. Bhattacharyya. His cheap broadside against Obama is the statement, “Given the craters that afflict the road around the Obama’s home base in Chicago, it is hardly surprising that lunar terrain isn’t very attractive to his administration.”

But, let us hear from Obama himself: his vision is for a "bold new approach to human space flight that embraces commercial industry, forges international partnerships, and invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration." Inspiring words and there indeed may not be much behind them. But, that can easily be said of the words of Gingrich too! Yet, one has to mark Obama’s focus on “commercial industry”. The author skips that part, so inconvenient to him because he cannot be seen to be echoing the target of his criticism when he says, “[T]he moon project may actually be cost effective, especially if private participation is accounted for.” After all, the shibboleth amongst the conservatives is Obama is a socialist!

We all know that, and quite wrongly, Teflon is a byproduct of space research, or at least of research towards spacefaring. But our beloved author lists far more number of innovations driven by space technology – “sneakers, freeze-dried food, ATMs and MRIs, among many others.” Why did Michael Jordan (remember him?) soar so high on the basketball court? Credit or blame space research! Why are ATMs so convenient / so unreliable? Credit or blame space research!  The only parallel between MRI and space activity I know of is in both one goes crawling into a tube! Why did the author miss mentioning microwave ovens? Haven’t a clue. I am glad he did not add that it was space research that helped humans invent the wheel!  

I am coming to the last point of my counterarguments. The author says that the government cannot do anything without cost escalations. Perhaps true. But, my response is for him to look into the defense deals the military has with the industrial complex, the twins of the military-industrial complex, strongly derided by a Republican president, Dwight D Eisenhower. There is not a defense system, be it the stealth bomber, mid-air refueling, or the drones or whatever (USD 900 toilet seats too!), that has not experienced a cost escalation during its development phase and the procurement targets curtailed because of such escalations. That is, if the government cannot control costs, the private industry must bear much of the burden for the same. That will be very inconvenient to the author’s thesis, it being so simplistic.

Before concluding, I have to preemptively respond to two potential criticisms of this post. One, why such a long piece on something that is truly not relevant to India, particularly when it is at best marginally relevant even to the US?

As a start, the author has been a foreign correspondent and is currently based in Canada. Yet, his piece appeared in an Indian paper and I read it. I am well within my rights to criticize it. But, more significantly, because the issue is unlikely to evoke much resonance in the reading public, it is more likely that his biases, particularly for the conservative causes, will go unrecognized and form the basis for a set of ideas to be formed. This is much akin to the processes of religion and being an atheist, I am duty bound to question it, indeed oppose it. Truth has to find a place in a public debate and I try to help.

The second criticism could be why do I not respond in the forum in which the article appeared? The response, it must be clear to you as you have read through this far, is that it takes a whole lot of sense to counter unadulterated nonsense. If I submit it without the credentials of being insane my write-up is guaranteed to be rejected. At best, then, what I could have done is submit a small piece, focused on one issue among the myriad, for possible publication in the Letters to the Editor space. That indeed is something I have done. I give below my submission:

“Anirudh Bhattacharyya equated the tapping of the electoral begging bowl by Gingrich in Florida (“I will revive the space program to get you jobs”) to JFK’s ringing of the nationalist bell (“Win the space race with the Soviets”) (Such a waste of space, Feb. 1). The Shuttle program – no denying its technological forntiership - was not conceived with any overarching ideal beyond building a space station which itself was a dodgy goal. Compare the loony lunar colony proposal of Gingrich or even the Bush’s Constellation program to the other “out-of-this-world” missions like Voyage and Pioneer that were purposeful beyond the mundane. The writer missed seeing beyond his political nose.”

The only reason Bhattacharyya’s article was published is, I surmise, it was simplistic, lacking in substance, indeed inane. An editorial page mind candy, early in the morning, if you will. It was a political campaign tract that espoused superficial concern for science and technology development. In doing so, the author undermined the legitimate demands of science to be considered on its own merit in political discussions. But that requires one to look beyond the tip of one’s political nose. Bhattacharyya showed himself to be singularly incapable in this regard.

What is most ironic about the piece is it is titled Such as waste of space, it wasted newspaper space and also my blogspace!

Raghuram Ekambaram