This reminds me of our beloved Bill Hole!
-
Your post from March 29, 2016, as Warmest Winds, demands to know Donald Trump’s thoughts on space if he’s elected, which aligns with his current status as President-elect in 2025. Since you’ve got a right to know, let’s piece together what we can about Trump’s stance on space, based on his past actions and what’s swirling around now—without leaning on speculative fluff or inventing anything. Trump’s first term (2017–2021) gives us the clearest window into his space priorities. He signed Space Policy Directive-1 in December 2017, kicking off the Artemis program to return humans to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars. This wasn’t just talk—NASA got a budget bump from $20.9 billion to $22.6 billion by the end of his term, showing he was willing to put money behind it. He also revived the National Space Council, chaired by then-VP Mike Pence, which churned out six directives tackling everything from lunar exploration to space traffic management. The big one was creating the Space Force in 2019, a new military branch focused on space as a warfighting domain—something he pushed hard, even if the media smirked at first. Fast forward to 2025. Trump’s back in office as of January, and his inaugural address promised to “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars” and plant the flag on Mars. That’s bold, but not new—he’s been Mars-obsessed since 2017, once tweeting that NASA should skip the Moon for Mars (despite signing off on Artemis). His pick for NASA chief, Jared Isaacman—a SpaceX flyer and billionaire—suggests a lean toward commercial space. Isaacman’s no fan of NASA’s pricey Space Launch System (SLS), calling it inefficient, so we might see a pivot to SpaceX’s Starship for Artemis missions. Then there’s Elon Musk, co-leading Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). Musk’s SpaceX is already NASA’s golden child—$2.25 billion in contracts in 2023—and his influence could tilt policy toward privatized spaceflight, maybe even fast-tracking Mars over the Moon. What’s he think of space beyond that? National security’s a thread—Space Force was about countering China and Russia, and posts on X from March 2025 echo that he saw space as “the next battlefield” early on. His 2020 National Space Strategy stressed U.S. dominance, partnering with commercial players while keeping adversaries in check. The Artemis Accords, started under him, push peaceful, cooperative lunar exploration—over 50 countries signed on. Will he stick with that diplomacy, or go full Musk and prioritize American industry? Hard to say, but his “America First” vibe suggests he’d flex U.S. muscle, especially with China aiming for a 2030 Moon landing. Your posts—like Magic V’s “Trump Space Museum” idea from February 2025 or Warmest Winds’ “new space agency” quip from 2019—hint at a flair for the cosmic and quirky. Trump’s not above grand gestures (he did watch SpaceX launches with Musk), but his thoughts seem less about goats in space or alien babe magnets and more about winning—whether it’s beating China to the Moon, getting to Mars, or making space pay off for American companies. He’s not detailed a 2025 agenda yet, but his first term and current team scream: space is for power, prestige, and profit.
-
-
Suddenly liberals are crying again! POLITICS RI judge won't stop Trump order banning 'gender ideology' in arts - for now. Portrait of Katie MulvaneyKatie Mulvaney Providence Journal PROVIDENCE – A federal judge declined to issue an order barring the Trump administration from requiring that grant applicants agree not to promote "gender ideology" in their work, but warned that the government’s directive likely violated the First Amendment, according to the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. Senior U.S. District Judge William E. Smith last week denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by LGBTQ arts organizations – including Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and the Theatre Communications Group – that apply for National Endowment for the Arts funding, but were likely to become ineligible in light of restrictions on the promotion of “gender ideology.” Smith found that the NEA’s Feb. 6 decision to make any project that “promotes” what the government deems to be “gender ideology” ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded the government’s statutory authority. But, he said, that because the NEA is currently in the process of determining whether to reimpose that ban, the court could not get in the way of the agency’s decision-making process. Cast members rehearse "La Luz Verde" – El Teatro's performance of "The Great Gatsby" in English and Spanish – performed at Rhode Island Latino Arts in Central Falls in 2023. “The bottom line is this: Although Plaintiffs can show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their (not moot) eligibility-bar claim, the balance of the equities and public interest weigh heavily against preliminary injunctive relief, at this time,” Smith said. He cautioned that the groups could renew their complaint if the administration reimposes the ban. “We shouldn’t need to negotiate for the right to support and uplift all artists – including transgender and nonbinary artists,” Marta V. Martinez, executive director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, said in a statement. “This order fails to bring us the clarity we need to apply for funds for projects that allow Latinx artists, especially those who are queer, trans, or nonbinary, to show up as their whole selves without fear of erasure of censorship. Artistic freedom and equal dignity are fundamental to a just and vibrant society and despite today’s ruling, we will continue to create space for artists to tell their truths, challenge norms, and build bridges through their work.” 'We are committed to continuing this case, defending the arts' Smith reminded applicants that they “now ... have this court’s preliminary review of the merits,” suggesting that the reimposition of the eligibility bar would be unlawful. The NEA is supposed to announce how they are planning to implement the executive order on April 30; however, grant applications were due on April 7 and may be subject to as-yet-undecided rules, including the funding bar, according to the ACLU. “This opinion makes clear that the NEA cannot lawfully reimpose its viewpoint-based eligibility bar,” Vera Eidelman, a senior lawyer at the ACLU, said in a statement. “Though it falls short of the relief we were seeking, we are hopeful that artists of all views and backgrounds will remain eligible for the support and recognition they deserve in this funding cycle and beyond.” Get the Susan Page newsletter in your inbox. Get the latest story from Susan Page right in your inbox. Delivery: Varies Your Email Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, faulted the decision for leaving applicants “in a state of censorial limbo.” “We are committed to continuing this case, defending the arts, and resisting attempts to stifle speech simply because the current administration does not like or agree with it,” Brown said. 'Not the result we hoped for' Four artistic groups from Rhode Island, Boston and New York sued the NEA last month arguing its new certification requirement violates the First Amendment by “singling out a particular viewpoint for a ban on federal arts funding” and is unconstitutionally vague by failing to adequately define what it means to “promote gender ideology.” The ACLU had asked for a preliminary injunction ahead of the grant application deadline. The suit argues that the certification requirement and funding prohibition violate the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. “This is not the result we hoped for, but we remain hopeful that the NEA will be unable to reimpose their restrictions,” Rose Oser, producing director of National Queer Theater, said. “This is just one of the administration’s many attempts to silence trans voices, but we will keep creating work that aligns with our values, and we will keep fighting on every front to defend trans rights and artistic freedom.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment