I regret to inform you that our regularly scheduled blog post has been interrupted by 2018’s most recent psychotic episode. You might not know this, but our government is quickly spinning out of control.
Let’s take a little trip down memory lane to the far away time of January 2018. A time of promise. A time we all believed held hope for humanity. Four God damn months ago.
Donald “Space Force” Trump decided to say he didn’t want to fund the International Space Station anymore. Well, it didn’t seem like such a big deal because he plans to end support by 2025. A full year after he leaves office even if the worst happens and he’s reelected. It was an awful thing to want to do because it’s asinine, but no one really freaked out because… we can fix it.
Then, okay, we flash forward to March. March 13th or so. Yeah. Okay, then he wants a “Space Force”. His words, not mine. I thought to myself; “He’s an idiot if he thinks he can build a ‘space force’ without the ISS but… whatever.” He seemed to want the space force sooner than 2025 but he wasn’t really specific about when or why or anything. In typical Trump style it was a meandering, half thought out verbal bowel movement.
So, we had a short amount of time between then and now where we learned a bunch of new salacious crap about our ‘Commander in Creep’ and his lawyer, and his lawyer’s other clients. Hi, Hannity, how’s the real estate situation?
Then today rolled around. I woke up thinking “Hey, I wonder what God awful grabasstic psychobabble the Orange airhead is saying today.” I checked the Twitters, as per usual. Not much, at first.
But then it happened. The thing I thought couldn’t possibly actually happen. Trump’s pick for the head of NASA got hired.
They actually confirmed him.
The urge to walk away from this and just cry in the fetal position is strong.
I was in the kitchen, getting coffee, just now and saw some potatoes. That made me think to leave the hearty bits, the ‘meat and potatoes’ till later and instead focus first on the “Traditional Values™” that this person, Jim Bridenstine holds regarding the LGBTQ community.
To start, I have a quote to share with you that I lifted from his page on house.gov. It’s a long quote so I’m going to break it up with a bit of ‘color’ commentary. Do indulge me, won’t you?
“I believe that marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman for life.”
So, this is basically a statement in opposition to divorce. I’m not saying that’s a bad sign but let’s keep going. Shall we?
“Marriage is one of civilization’s oldest institutions…” What? Do you have some kind of proof for this statement? How do you know? Oh… hang on… you think civilization is only 6,000 years old, don’t you? Right. Kay. Well, it’s not, so… moving on.
“…and the family is our most local form of government.” For fuck sake. Do you believe you’re the president of your house? I feel like this is actively injuring my intellect.
“When a person is in need, the spouse and family should be the first line of support. Therefore, any law that breaks down the marriage relationship or the family structure places more responsibility on government. For this reason, promoting marriage and the family must be a top priority of lawmakers.”
So, divorce places an undue burden on the government? Oh, I get it, this is a way of you having a problem with entitlement programs because you think all people who get divorced inevitably end up on food stamps and needing any kind of help is grounds for being an unperson. I’ll continue.
“In 2009, Oklahoma voters approved a constitutional amendment to uphold traditional marriage, which was challenged later that year. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Oklahoma’s law violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in July 2014. This was an incorrect ruling.”
No. Um, see, you disagree with it. It wasn’t incorrect. But let’s see how you wrap this turd up.
“On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage in the case Obergefell vs. Hodges. By doing so, the Supreme Court undermined state authority in matters of marriage and family law. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent: “This court is not a legislature…whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.” He further stated, “Allowing unelected federal judges to select which enumerated rights rank as ‘fundamental’ – and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination – raises obvious concerns about the judicial role.”
Do you not comprehend that this isn’t actually a support of your argument against same sex marriage but an argument of the role of courts in deciding what laws should or should not exist? I mean, there’s a legitimate argument to be made there but it doesn’t have one thing to do with gay marriage. The original quote was a half-assed attempt to justify repealing the decision based on what is arguably some of the shakiest of legal grounds. Such a ruling could easily upend thousands of precedents and laws. But, hey, let’s burn it all to save marriage for the straights, huh?
“Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution enumerates federal powers. Marriage is not mentioned. The 10th Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. The definition of marriage is a matter which clearly lies under the 10th Amendment and should remain with the states.”
Okay, a state’s rights argument. So, I wonder what your state did. Oh, that’s right, the ruling was upheld because it was right. That’s super weird. You and your fellow conservatives have repeatedly tried to overturn the ruling and you just keep getting slapped back down because you can’t seem to get around that pesky constitution. Dang.
“In addition, I want each citizen’s view on marriage protected by the First Amendment.”
It is, are you some how under the belief that this ruling meant you’re not allowed to think that marriage between two men or two women isn’t right? You can say it all day long, bucko. But the law is the law. See, because the First Amendment doesn’t cause laws to come into existence just because you say things. That’s moronic.
“In the 114th Congress, I have co-sponsored H.R. 2802, the First Amendment Defense Act. This bill would prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”
So, you seriously were so bothered by the idea that you might actually be censored… disallowed from spewing hateful rhetoric, in a country with free speech, because they passed a law? You realize you can advocate for anything… ANYTHING… except violence or treasonable acts. Right? Like… you can advocate for… bestiality as they did in Kentucky where they finally passed a law forbidding it with a vote of 25-10. I wish I was making up that vote count. I’m off track again.
“As the husband to a wonderful wife and father to three great kids, I have personally experienced the benefits and blessings of having a strong marriage and family. By all accounts, strong marriages and families greatly benefit our society as a whole. I will do all I can to ensure that the Federal government follows the Constitution and leaves the issue of marriage to the states.”
Your anecdotal marriage aside, you seem to think that gay marriages won’t benefit society. I’m not sure why. Do you think God will send an Earthquake? Or… What’s up, buddy?
Okay… so that’s a small example of his obvious disdain for gay rights or civil rights or ya know… the courts. But, what about science? He’s going to be heading up NASA, for the love of all that is unholy and based entirely in rationality and fact. So, how’s he feel about science?
If you have small children you may want to walk out to the shed so they can’t hear or cover your face with a pillow to scream into before reading the following:
He’s a climate change denier.
It gets worse. He’s been instrumental in forcing NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) to use commercial satellite data as well as government sponsored data. Now, I could be wrong (I admit that) but I don’t this is a good idea because those companies could be intentionally altering their data. In 20 years when we find gigantic holes in the data, who pays the price? You? Doubt it. No, you walk away from this in a history book with your name next to NASA. For shame.
Okay so he also supports the ban on Transgender people serving in the military and he’s anti-muslim. I’m not even going to touch that right now because frankly it’s below me.
So far as I can tell the only legitimate reason this person is being allowed to serve is it’s believed he will be instrumental in bridging the private and public sectors in the space faring industry. Also he was a pilot. I’m seriously not sure what that has to do with NASA since, you know, they’re rocket scientists.
For my part, I hope he has some kind of “Come to Jesus” moment and realizes he has some duty to everyone in this country to actually treat his position with some amount of respect. NASA has a fairly robust anti-discrimination policy and a well laid out reporting structure and it’s my hope that this remains in place despite his views.
No offense to Jim, but my expectation is that he’ll be caught up in scheduling private launches into space, have some exorbitantly expensive globe made with his face on it, buy up all the rights to “Rocket Man” so he can play it over the NASA live footage on repeat or some other unbelievably ridiculous scandal and sully the otherwise clean reputation of a solid and wholly American institution which has done more, in many people’s books, to bring this country together than virtually any other single Endeavour.
I guess the best we can hope for is he isn’t a flat Earther. Right?