I love it when Democrat’s go apoplectic. It is so refreshing to see the veins bulge in their necks when their self righteous issues  get shot down. That happened today in the great state of Missouri.

OK, what do these people have in common: Walt Disney, Mark Twain,  Sacajawea, Scott Joplin, Walter Cronkite,  Harry Truman, Laura Ingalls, Bob Barker,  and Rush Limbaugh? They are all members of the Missouri Hall of fame. Along with about two dozen others, each is a native son or daughter of the “Show Me State.” Today, Rush Limbaugh joined the list.

These people  are known for their celebrity in many diverse areas: politics, entertainment, the arts,  science etc. But the Democrats in Missouri will not acknowledge the celebrity and influence of a Rush Limbaugh, from Cape Girardeau.  Whether you agree with him or not, he is beyond a doubt one of the most influential talk radio personalities ever. He probably revived AM radio with his talk format, and has become the most listened to radio personality in the country. Doesn’t that deserve some attention?

Sadly, the Missouri legislature had to present this honor in a closed session with Highway Patrol backup because of the  fear of violence by womens groups and others. How truly sad. There can be no difference of opinion to these people. Everyone must tow the party line.  Honest disagreements are not allowed on college campuses,  in the media, or in politics without being deemed hateful.

We see this daily regarding very sensitive issues like gay marriage, abortion, Obamacare,  and hate crimes legislation just to name a few.  It is a fact that several women’s groups are attempting to drive Limbaugh off the air because of his comments to a 30 year old political activist, or as they like to call her,  ”young female  college student. ”

I enjoy the sarcasm, snarkiness and biting humor of his program.  I also like South Park and Mad Magazine.  Limbaugh is not for everyone; but until he went nationwide  in 1987 , there was no outlet for conservatives in the media. He has spawned many imitators on the right, but interestingly, no one can achieve lasting  success on the left.  I wonder why that is?

In any case, congrats to the State of Missouri for having the political courage to recognize someone who has achieved success in his field. This will be a monumental election year  and we need a variety of inputs. If the Democrat’s  had their  way, we would all be listening to NPR for our news and entertainment. Fresh Air;  Diane Rehm; Afro Pop;   Click and Clack? Wait wait don’t tell me? Now that is cruel and unusual punishment…don’t you think? And we are paying for it…. ARGGGH

Yes, I have to confess, there are other women in my life. My wife knows,  and bless her heart,  tolerates this… as long as I dont do anything about it.  It is an addiction , I’ll admit, but I need the daily fixes to get through the day.

I start by having breakfast and coffee with Martha McCallum of Fox news. We laugh together, are outraged by similar things, and she helps get me ready for my day. Later, I take a mid morning break with Jenna Lee of Fox News. We are more serious together but have a lot in common.  We look into each others eyes and commiserate about events taking place.

I eat lunch with Megyn Kelly. Funny sharp, opinionated, insightful, she makes the lunch hour fly by. When she convenes Kelly’s court, I feel like I am actually there. We smile together and promise to meet again the next day.

At mid afternoon, I join my friends on “The Five” on Fox News. We watch it at three in Colorado.  I listen to Dana Perino, Kimberly Guilfoyle , Andrea Tantaros and others, eviscerate democrats and liberals every day. They are incredibly smart and I am  so glad they come to my house every day. I wish they would stay for an after-work drink, but they are busy.

At five, I actually switch to CNN. I get a world news wrap-up from Erin Burnett of OutFront. A former CNBC business reporter, Burnett, I call her Erin,  brings an incredible background to the job. She asks the questions I want asked, but does her job with a youthful approach and  lightness that always makes me smile. They repeat her show later in the evening , which I will sometimes watch before bed, so we can say good night to each other.

I wake up the next morning and we start the process all over again. What a great group of friends I have. I know some think they are just anchors on TV, but they are more than that. I don’t know how I would get through the day without their smiles, encouragement and insight. I can always count on them being there for me, as I will be for them. After all , isn’t that what friends are for?  If you have similar friends, let me know. In the meantime, have a great weekend. See you Monday.

I thought we could use a break from the intense political drama occurring this week and wanted to share this piece from the Weekly Space Review. As a long time fan of Star Trek (the original), BattleStar Gallactica, and other space series, I tend to agree with the author. I love space and spent time last weekend looking at the Lyrid meteor shower. I only wish our president shared this dream. Perhaps he never watched Star Trek?   Enjoy the article, and have a nice weekend.

Does Star Trek make space travel look too easy?

by Andre Bormanis Monday, April 23, 2012

In an interview with a reporter from the Associated Press, Scott Pace, the current director of the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University and a former NASA associate administrator, was asked to comment on the April 12th failure of the North Korean rocket launch. He noted that sending a vehicle into space is still a significant technical challenge, and added, “In many ways, the worst enemy of NASA is Star Trek… Captain Picard says ‘engage’ and the ship moves. And people think ‘How hard can this be?’” Filmmaker James Cameron supposedly made a similar comment about Star Trek’s depiction of space travel several years ago. This, so the argument goes, leads to unrealistic expectations in the public mind about where we should be these days on the Final Frontier. Reality has fallen far short of the galaxy-hopping future envisioned by Star Trek, and NASA takes the blame.

Life aboard the various incarnations of the starship Enterprise was obviously not hardship duty. More cruise ship than battleship, with their expansive cabins, wide corridors (a waste of internal space necessitated by the need to accommodate TV cameras on bulky dollies), and artificial gravity, Enterprise made interstellar travel look very comfortable – if not exactly easy. Gene Roddenberry, creator of the original Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, insisted on a certain level of “realism” in the depiction of future starship technologies, and incorporated the suggestions of numerous scientists and engineers to create a fictional spaceship that had the look and feel of something that could—maybe, someday—exist. The purpose of this effort was not to predict how a starship would actually work, but to make it easier for the audience to suspend its disbelief long enough to enjoy the stories Gene wanted to tell.

I doubt it ever occurred to Gene that this might create unrealistic expectations among the general public about the future of space travel. He was a man who fervently believed that the human race could turn any dream into reality. But he had no illusions that the kind of technical progress envisioned by Star Trek would be easy. In fact, many of the stories we told on the show are about just how hard and dangerous space exploration can be.

More to the point, the simplicity with which a vehicle or device can be controlled says nothing about its complexity. When I get into my car, turn the key and hear the engine start, it doesn’t lead me to assume that building a car is easy. When I open my laptop and see the screen light up, I don’t immediately think that designing and fabricating a personal computer must be simple. The industries that produce cars and computers have worked very hard over many years to become good at what they do. We’ve now come to expect a certain level of performance from them. I can’t imagine many people believe that achieving these technological feats has been a walk in the park for the people responsible for them.

Expectations for a glorious future in space were fueled at least as much by the extraordinary accomplishments of NASA in its early years as by the visions of science fiction writers. When I was a boy, I had a piano teacher who was 21 years old when the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk. She lived to see men walk on the Moon. Charles Lindbergh, the first man to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean—an amazing, death-defying feat in 1927—attended the launch of Apollo 11. He was just 66 years old at the time.

When people watched a space shuttle launch on TV, they typically heard a simple countdown, followed by the sight of the main engines firing, then the solid rocket motors. From a dramatic explosion of fire and smoke, the shuttle rose majestically into the sky, as if conjured by magic. In other words, it seemed about as easy as Captain Picard saying, “engage.”

NASA sold the shuttle program to Congress on the promise of making access to space routine and (relatively) inexpensive. Almost as easy as commercial airline flight, eventually. Civilians would even be able to ride the shuttle someday. NASA managers believed that its fleet of orbiters, flying as often as once a week, would bring down the cost of getting people into space by an order of magnitude or more. That was the rationale for the program. For years, NASA continued to buy its own hype about routine access to space, until the Challenger tragedy reminded everyone how difficult space travel really is.

The agency faltered in the post-Apollo era, but not through any fault of its engineers. Instead, it faltered because of the simple fact that American taxpayers, and their representatives in Congress, didn’t consider space exploration a priority, and weren’t willing to spend the money for another Apollo-level effort. One could make the case that the reluctance of NASA’s leadership to accept this fact has hindered human space exploration: by failing to recognize the reality of its budget limits, NASA over-promised and under-delivered on its two big post-Apollo programs, Shuttle and ISS. Bold new agendas for sending astronauts beyond Earth orbit without substantially increasing the NASA budget are met with understandable skepticism.

Not many people in the space community are effective at communicating to the general public how important their work is. Since funding ultimately depends on public support, it is extremely important, in these tough economic times, to promote space. Science fiction has done this for decades. One could argue that Star Trek in particular has done a better job of extolling the societal value of space exploration than NASA has.

Whatever Star Trek represents in the American imagination, it isn’t impatience with NASA. Star Trek fans are among NASA’s biggest supporters. Maybe it will never be as comfortable and safe as a cruise aboard the starship Enterprise, but the aspiration to make space accessible to anyone with the willingness to work hard enough to get there should be a primary goal for NASA—and that purpose isn’t served by using a TV show as an excuse for the failure of our spacefaring dreams to become reality.

The author was a consultant, writer, and eventually a producer for Star Trek, and has written or co-written some 20 produced episodes of Voyager and Enterprise. He is also a graduate of the GWU Space Policy Institute program in Science, Technology and Public Policy, then under the direction of John Logsdon. He would like to thank Michael Okuda for his thoughtful suggestions and comments on this essay.