Wernher Von Braun

Wernher Von Braun is linked forever with America’s space program.

 As a leading scientist working for the Nazi party during the war, he developed the V2 rocket which relies on liquid propulsion, a major breakthrough in the 1940’s. Germany tried to weaponized the missiles but killed more laborers in their camps than allied soldiers. It wasn’t an effective weapon but helped create a ‘genius’ myth around its creator Von Braun. Sensing a collapse of the Third Reich and the strong possibility of being captured by the Russians, he surrendered to the Americans instead.

Wernher Von Braun’s second act is either a miscarriage of justice or proof that noble patriots got sucked into supporting a dictator they didn’t like. His link to the Nazi party was too much for many Americans to get over. Why should he not be held responsible for the atrocities committed by the group to which he was a member? Naturally the Americans questioned him about his affiliation. I’ve read through some of his answers on the critical questions about his background. He mostly comes off reluctant about the German cause, an engineer concerned with building rockets and exploring the moon. 

Whether you believe him or not determines what you think of allowing him to become an American, and develop a space program in the U.S.

At first glance it doesn’t look good. The Americans essentially moved Von Braun and his crew over the Atlantic and set them up with a new purpose, to beat the Russians into space. Not only to beat the Soviets but also to test and develop rockets for military use.

From 1945 until his death in 1977 he worked on ballistic missiles for the Army and countless NASA programs like the Saturn launch rocket. They played catch-up to the Soviets after Sputnik (first satellite). Saturn was the first launch rocket to take Americans into space.

For some, Von Braun was nothing more than an opportunist. A reluctant Nazi perhaps, but one who oversaw the conditions in the research laboratory and did nothing to stop them. Slave labor was used to assemble and test the V2s under miserable conditions. Reports from soldiers who liberated the camp at Mittlebau-Dora described it the same way they described finding other camps around the country, dead bodies stacked in corners and horrific injuries, malnutrition, disease. War engenders callousness in those who experience it. But to not protest or walk out in protest suggests cruelty or indifference. The rest of the Nazi cadres that were captured faced a war tribunal at Nuremberg, including Von Braun’s ally Albert Speer.  

What should be the response toward scientists’ who worked with Nazis? I don’t mean the ones who conducted torture experiments on people, just the ones who developed bomb technology or rocket propulsion? Von Braun never believed had Germany won, that Allied scientists would have been treated the same as generals and commanders. Where military leaders get harsh punishment (imprisonment, death) scientific disciplines get lighter penalties like restrictions on future practice.

Apparently he expresses remorse for the treatment of prisoners in later interviews. Always with the aside that he couldn’t stop it if he wanted to, he was a scientist caught up in a war.

By all accounts he makes a genuine life change in America after he attends a Baptist church in Texas. One account tells of a pastor in his hometown of Huntsville, Alabama leading Wernher in a prayer of repentance. If anyone doubts his commitment to Christ, they need only read his observations on science and religion.

Through science man attempts to understand the laws of creation; through religious activities he attempts to understand the intentions of the Creator. Each approach is a search for ultimate truth.

If this was an attempt to be accepted in America as an engineer living in accordance with cultural norms, he wouldn’t have been so bold about the existence of God. Especially in the science community, agnosticism would have been a wiser choice. By promoting “Creationism” he basically becomes an outcast among an elite group. By the time of his death he is the most prominent Creationist in the country and sees no conflict between religion and science.

More scientists will get off their ivory towers and publicly say what I am saying here...with all the modern means at our disposal, with schools, churches, educational institutions, press, radio, and television, they should tell the world that religion and science are not incompatible; that, to the contrary; they belong together.

Another anecdote about the V2 rocket technician shows he wasn’t interested in making ballistic missiles for the Nazi’s. Supposedly Himmler had him arrested after he Von Braun showed a lack of interest in using his designs for the war effort. He was shortly released after Albert Speer convinced the Fuhrer of his utility. 

As with everything surrounding the life of the most important man in space development, it depends on how convincing he is to us. His Christianity seems genuine to me since it was so unnecessary in his profession. Yet he becomes a leading voice for Creationism and exploration of the heavens until his death in 1977.

 It’s Wernher Von Braun’s usefulness to the United States’ ambitions in space that makes one cynical. Would the crew responsible for V2’s technology have been treated differently if they weren’t brilliant, if they hadn’t achieved scientific breakthroughs in rocket propulsion?

I keep coming across a lot of literature critical of Von Braun and his white glove treatment by the Americans after the war. Maybe his genius is what saved him, an indispensable piece in race to the moon. Maybe it was his very falling out with the Nazis and their plans to bomb civilians that separated him, just enough, from the monstrous regime. 

How he lived his life after the war speaks to a change of heart and a commitment to scientific inquiry. Despite his past, he made his future matter for good. 

This Week's Medley

 I didn’t write last night because I was tired after a triple cheeseburger and French fry food coma. I followed it with a handful of Hersey’s chocolate and a bag of very tasty pretzels. I chased it all with a vanilla shake. Of all the excuses not to write, that ranks pretty low. How much fat content can a person cram into one meal? I was determined to find out by embarking on a gluttonous course and passing out when the calorie overload hit DEFCON 1. I fell to the occasion and passed out at the first slow period of the evening. I dozed off reading a book like a senior citizen watching Jeopardy in the afternoon.

I had a long week, cut me some slack.

I've felt a general sluggishness in creativity lately, “Whataburger” notwithstanding. Every sentence, every word, every letter oozes out me like grease from that side of fries. It’s slow and laborious ensuring every effort to come up with a subject to write about will probably fail as I get frustrated with the pace. With writing I just plow through most times. The one common factor between writing interesting pieces and nonsense is the amount of time spend.

It’s a simple formula, allow as much time as needed to finish the thought, then edit. It might take two hours or maybe three, but it can’t be rushed and it shouldn’t be forced.

For me at least, honesty holds up well in print. It flows more naturally from the brain to the page. Mark Twain said “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” The same goes for writing and he probably had stories in mind when he said it.

So I thought I’d try something different, an overview of items I couldn’t get enough on by themselves.  

News:

Aretha Franklin died this week of cancer. A major force in recording and pop culture, she still gets credited with inspiring thousands of young musicians, not just ‘soul’ either. For me, her part in Blues Brothers stands out the most. A lot of blues and jazz artists had bit parts in that movie. Ray Charles, John Lee Hooker, Cab Calloway and yes Aretha Franklin as a Chicago restaurant owner. When Jake and Elwood show up to win back two members of their former band she tries stop them from leaving. In a short scene, she belts out a crushing chorus with the waiters dancing to a choreographed routine. I was surprised to read that she never appeared in another movie again.  Blues and soul aren’t really my kind of music but Franklin’s legacy surpasses particular genres. You might not like basketball but you definitely know who LeBron James is. She will be remembered more for her “R.E.S.P.E.C.T” song and the anthem of individuality it became.

TV:

I’ve been watching “The Crown” on Netflix. Although it covers historical events about the current occupants of Buckingham Palace, I imagine they take some liberties with their relationships’. As a private family with multiple layers of assistants, regents, officials and go-betweens it would difficult to get a genuine portrayal. But it is a fantastic show. John Lithgow dominates every scene as an aging Winston Churchill. It isn’t a flattering image of the revered Prime Minister. He is years past his World War II glory days but still clings to power, refusing to retire despite heated calls from parliament to stand aside. He’s mostly seen complaining about ‘socialists’, obsessing about his legacy and the future of the country without him. Lithgow’s Churchill is a sensitive but erratic leader who is, despite being a celebrity among the British people, out of step with the times. It’s a little heavier on emotion than I picture from great statesman, but with an abundance of moral clarity that’s probably just right.

 We know a lot more about Churchill than Queen Elizabeth, but events of the day bring out character in both. The contrast between aging legend and the young queen plays on the direction of a country recovering from war. Which ideas, values and institutions will survive? If there is a theme to the show it’s that choices demand consideration of a monarchy with entrenched rules and a very long history. The queen must learn to balance tradition with opinion.

Sports:

Late summer and early fall is the best time of year for sports. The playoff race makes watching baseball more interesting. The Cubs are 3 games ahead in the Central Division and winning games at the right time. In baseball it’s all about ‘getting hot’ at the right moment. Each team plays 162 regular season games which is rough on bodies and rough on arms, especially pitchers. By the playoffs a lot of teams run out of gas, the ones that make it to the series have deep benches and deep pocketbooks. Chris Bryant should be back from a rehab stint shortly, hopefully his hitting comes back with him. As long as we have a healthy Ben Zobrist I like the Cubs chances. Every team has a clutch player, ours is Ben.

Both college and NFL football games start in a few weeks, and the US Open (tennis not golf) gets underway. Working at a sporting goods store means having the TV on all day and keep track of matches in Flushing Meadows. I won’t pretend to know all the early-rounders who try their luck against Nadal and Djokovic, but live sports in the middle of the day (while working) is a convenient perk. Working Saturday means choosing which college football games to watch too. Networks do a better job of showing games at night than 20 years ago. There only used to be one Saturday night game on ESPN, now there are games in nearly every conference. 

College football has never been better. 

Classification and Personality

“There are two types of people in this world…” goes a famous line from Bill Murray’s What About Bob  “Those who like Neil Diamond, and those who don’t. My ex-wife loves him.” 

Even though he is neurotic to a crippling degree, Bob does what most of us do when trying to understand others and himself, sort and segregate. 

It’s easier to understand others when we boil it down to A or B choices. The desire to classify along personality lines is more about figuring out “us” than learning about “them”.  

Buzzfeed and Facebook are awash in ‘this or that’ type quizzes that sort users based on personality. From “What Lord of the Rings character are you?” to “Which 80’s sitcom describes your life?” All suggest an interest in self-discovery. What is at the heart of it though? Why the need, mostly for fun, to separate and label? It has more to do with seeing ourselves a certain way than putting others in a box. By solving key components of self, we can map out life easier and find our tribe. A touch of laziness is to blame for an obsession with finding the perfect track. Who doesn’t want to find the path of least resistance? Who hasn’t thought “Give me the relationships and careers where I’m destined for awesomeness”? 

 Questionnaires give us the confidence of figuring out some missing piece of our own little puzzle.

The popular psych profile Myers-Briggs separates people into 16 groups but starts with 4 broad characteristics. I don’t think I’ve ever read through and thought about how to classify others though. I’m only interested in where I fall along the scale (ISFJ in case you wondered). Maybe it is just old fashioned selfishness to figure out ‘me’ first and consider others later. But if selfishness is the culprit it proves my point. We want to figure out ‘us’ in a larger ‘we’ picture.

The individuality I'm describing is closer to self-interest than vanity. There is some corner of the brain that lights up when we solve a tough math problem or find answers to a baffling question. It’s a confidence builder. Finding some hidden gem of information through diligent effort is its own reward, much more when we do it ourselves. Tests on personality force us to be honest by presenting scenarios and demanding responses. A full picture of our makeup is only possible when we tell the truth. Also, valid profiles aren’t based on right or wrong answers, the incentive to cheat is removed.

A lot of this depends on how serious you take personality profiles. At best, they are trait markers and at worst, silly time wasting fun.

 Discovering our type can be limiting. Tying personality strictly to trait prevents us from taking chances in areas of life we don’t feel qualified to engage in. This allows a that’s-not-my-job attitude to seep in keeping us from accepting challenges we might really need.  We play to type instead of working through a default mindset. 

My job requires me to help a lot of coaches and athletic directors. Most are highly organized and competitive. Occasionally they’re demanding and used to getting their own way. This is challenging when their deadlines aren’t met, which happens sometimes. Past success lays the groundwork for future disputes, so naturally they insist on being assertive. It’s worked before. Playing to type for them means holding ground and pushing demands. Losing an argument can be catastrophic and they’re likely to hold a grudge. By not moving on from a no-win situation they hurt themselves by personalizing the affair.

Most of the studies on personality show that people can change their type over the years. If there is one benefit to discovering how you interpret the world, information and personal relationships, it shows us where improvement is possible. Improvement is possible when we have all the information. People with naturally aggressive tendencies can learn to control anger and move on without hard feelings. The same goes for those with agreeable personalities. By sticking to their beliefs they can break out of the passive mold that allows others to push them around. Personality tests like Myers-Briggs can illuminate some of “whys” and “what fors” we drift toward instinctively. Change requires rigorous attention to improvement though. 

Wanting to improve areas of personality is universal, although there is probably a type that doesn’t believe they need to. I did some quick searching to find out what self-improvement actually means to people. Most agree on the basic “what’s”, happiness, health and relationships.  The “how’s” diverge a little. Trying new things and breaking type is good advice because it forces us to use skills that aren’t yet developed. Like trying out a new workout routine, it makes us uncomfortable at first but strengthens muscles we didn’t know we had. Teaching a class, joining a club and learning a language are some popular recommendations (from Quora at least).

These are self-focused ideas but it’s tough to help others without first challenging yourself. There is room for improvement everywhere, whether you like Neil Diamond, associate Family Ties with your upbringing or prefer reading books to watching movies. 

Shortcuts don’t exist for change; that includes personality tests.  

Community or Attendance

I attended a Wednesday night church service this week.

 My church only does one Wednesday service per week now. Somewhere along the way, a lot of churches put in multiple Sunday morning sessions and even one for Saturday night. Evangelicals who’ve grown up with the midweek option might find it strange to see it go. I can’t say how common it is around the country though.  I stopped going to the Wednesday service on consecutive weeks when I was in high school.  For some this is an awful break from tradition, an inexcusable move that proves America doesn’t care about God anymore.

 But is the lack of services really a trend toward laziness or a strategic move designed to reach the lost on their own turf?

The stated reason, for fewer church times, is to encourage small groups to take the place of large gatherings and invest in each other on a personal level. Small groups are an extension of a larger community within the church. With big churches it’s easy to ignore and be ignored by the people we see in service. The anonymity of big gatherings often leads to isolation, as contradictory as it seems. Small groups promote participation for those without strong support from friends and relatives. It also forces ‘lone wolf’ types to make connections. Lone wolfs would hardly get that type of community from just attending church once per week. They might not even get it attending 3 services weekly. 

If the shift to smaller groups works, than we can expect churches to grow across the country as people without a formal group structure become new regulars.   

The argument against killing the midweek service is that it promotes less Christian teaching overall. Cynical types think pastors just want time off. “Tell the people it’s about ‘community’ and we get to stay home.” First, most changes from religious officials get the conspiracy treatment, why should ‘community’ notions be different? Second, the church should reflect, in some ways, the culture around it. Without it, Christianity can seem foreign, something unreachable and unrelatable. Clothing is one example. It went from ties with slacks to flip flops and baseball caps in less than 20 years. The music too is faster paced, much louder and sounds closer to a concert than a choir led chorus. It’s probably a reflection changing music tastes within the church instead of some outreach effort. But it reflects the culture and isn’t contradictory to any core biblical beliefs.   

A culture that doesn’t attend church (largely) won’t hear the message of the gospel except on a one to one basis. Those interactions can happen anywhere and often do. This is the shift Christians need, from attendance to outreach. It could be that the national Church is trying to revive some of sense of community that is going away in large portions of the country. Civic groups and service clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis) so important 50 years ago are dying. Some of these groups lost over 50% of their members between 1975 and 2000. Americans don’t join like they used to. The ties of local organizations (religious and non) that once existed are barely effective anymore at building group dynamics. Some blame the digital space, internet groups that offer community without the pesky human interaction. Maybe so, but it could also be that we don’t have the same obligation to tradition anymore. Maybe there is a feeling of “What’s the big deal?” or “Why do I need that?” If it leads to searching for groups in different ways, that’s great. But it can also lead to isolation. Isolation is easier to achieve than ever and it’s having negative effects on human interaction across the country.

Community promotes individual growth, isolation retards it.

Churches are figuring this out in a time of slipping attendance across the country. What difference would an additional night of service make in a society that doesn’t bother going on the regular days? Isn’t that person more likely to attend a small gathering with friends than a church? It’s also forcing church officials to imagine a more disparate organization in the future, one central hub with dozens of small affiliates. A lot of megachurches use this model already by broadcasting services to a number of smaller gatherings. Other forms of gathering will develop too as communication of media increases. 

       

The willingness to provide support and build reliable communities reflects a two part goal for the national Church. Without changing with the times we lose alienating a generation that didn’t grow up in America attending services. The goal is the same, preach the gospel, make disciples and support the community through outreach. The shift in attitude is what's important, if you won't come to us, we'll com to you.

 I don’t think the traditional brick and mortar church buildings are going away. But they are seizing on an opportunity to reach those far removed from a tradition of church attendance. For those used to slipping in and out of services without obligations to outreach, this is a welcome change.

Fictional Reading, Non-Fictional Writing

When it comes to writing I prefer non-fiction and easy to compile stuff, like this blog. In reading I go the other way, towards fiction. I find writing stories very challenging, unlike personal stuff and observational content. Current events and opinion always feel like a natural fit for me. I seem to gravitate toward news and politics. This weird FOMO instinct kicks in every time someone says “Hey did you hear about…?” and of course I didn’t. I really hate that. 

When it comes to books though I like novels, mostly. Not sure why. It probably has to do with the adventure or mystery. No one reads a chapter in James Patterson book and goes “Well, that’s enough for today”  With non-fiction I always feel like I need to take notes. I guess it’s a lingering effect of hours spent in the classroom. Like I’m afraid someone might ask me to summarize what I just read. But learning happens in stories as well as with fiction. I make distinctions between non-fiction in story form and the traditional biography or self-help variety. 

 There is a misconception among those who read non-fiction, that it’s the choice of 'learners'. One of my favorite lines from the movie Sideways is from Thomas Haden Church’s father in law, “I think you read something, someone just invented it--waste of time.” It sums up the feeling people have about stories.

The lines get blurred in memoirs, since most of the details are accurate but include a lot of filler to round out the best remembered parts. I read a book called Back to Moscow from a European student getting his Master’s in Russian Literature. He lived in Moscow for a few years while reading the classics (Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky). He mostly just went to night clubs and hooked up with women while ‘trying’ to get work done. His project probably needed a year or less but he lived there for three, partying and boozing hard. He details the city and summarizes the literature throughout, sprinkling the story with digressions on famous characters like “Ana Karenina” and “Natasha Rostova”.

He also covers events in Moscow during the early 2000s, including the Theater hostage crisis which he was there for. I won’t ruin the ending but it ties in perfectly with the tragic lives’ of the heroines he studies. It isn’t traditional fiction where the story is completely whole cloth, he probably embellishes a bit but it reads like a fiction. It isn’t a textbook or a classic (hardly) but I learned enough.

John Grisham novels are pure fiction. He does courtroom and legal dramas better than anyone. He creates rich characters and his stories reflect time and place better than most; he doesn’t overwhelm readers with countless people and unbelievable plot twists. We probably don’t realize we’re learning about the people and culture while also guessing where the story will lead. It’s the best kind of learning too, heavy on personal story and light on facts. In this way his books are fun and engaging. There’s probably a bit of truth in most of his stories despite being technically a fictional account. Scenes from his childhood, nasty behavior from strangers and courtroom experiences all round out his novels.

The most common distinction between fiction and non-fiction is whether something really happened. But this isn’t a great distinction either. Ernest Hemingway supposedly wrote fictional accounts of American expats in France, Italy, and Spain but as a reporter living abroad he must have taken some of it from his own experience. Nearly all of his characters drink excessively, something he was known for. In The Sun Also Rises, Hemingway shows Parisian friends attending the annual bullfighting celebration in Pamplona. His interest in the tradition is obvious by the way he describes the fiesta in the pages. Bullfighting as art is the theme, a pure craft set apart from drunk, partying foreigners. The story is set in the 1920’s and even though the Paris group is hedonistic and out for fun, bullfighting is described technically. There is some criticism that Ernest Hemingway didn’t get it just right, but this is probably where the fictional aspects kick in.

Everyone who loves to read has asked themselves “What’s the point? What do you hope to get from this?” If the answer is enjoyment, entertainment, adventure, than read fictional stories. If the answer is to get better at X, or learn about Abe Lincoln, than read non-fiction. Better yet, surprise yourself, pick up something completely random and see what you think. Same goes for writing. I try to do short stories on occasion for the practice. The dialogue is painful, the tale meanders and the characters are a little wooden, but I try.

So many books are perfect combinations of both genres that distinctions aren’t helpful anymore. Authors or subjects are better ways to break down particulars. A lot of us prefer films to books. Shows based on characters might be a way to explore books for those allergic to reading. Amazon Prime has a series called “Bosch” based on Michael Connelly’s famous Harry Bosch detective crime books. Amazon’s Bosch is a little too clean and fit for what I imagined the middle aged cop to be. That’s a risk we all take when going from film to page though. Images don’t always meet expectations. 

In any case we could all probably read more.

  

NATO: Worth the Fuss

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an alliance of nations built on the idea the Soviet Union needed to be contained militarily. There was genuine concern among Western European countries (Germany, France, England) that the Soviets posed a threat to a weekend Europe after World War II. NATO tied together these concerns, along with the United States and Canada, in a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 a lot of people question the overall goal of the pact. Is it still essential now that the Soviet Union is gone? What is the strategic objective for the alliance? NATO is just as important today because Russian is just as determined to gobble up weak nation states. It has some problems though and lack of European commitment to spending is chief among them. President Trump was right to point it out, but he is wrong to disparage the idea of a unified front.

 NATO countries agreed to 2% of GDP spending requirement from each of its 29 member countries. So far only Greece and Estonia have ponied up. President Trump was in Brussels last week for a summit on the future of the organization. Most of what is getting attention is his dressing down of Angela Merkel for her country’s lack of spending and indebtedness to Russian energy companies. Trump criticizes NATO members as often as he can, either in Tweet form or in speeches. His complaint reflects commonly held views that alliance members are shirking their payments at the expense of domestic goals. NATO acts as a type of military welfare for European members that don’t want to pay for a standing army. It’s easy to avoid payments when the bulk of the money is being spent by the U.S. But by focusing on the spending only, we miss the secondary benefits of having so many sovereign nations on our side. 

After 911 the coalition supported the invasion of Afghanistan and later the invasion of Iraq. It might seem like a small offering but considering NATO members support others who’ve been attacked, it was a big ask. Iraq in particular cost Tony Blair a lot of support at home. It wasn’t a traditional war either in which country A needs help from an invading country B. It was more preemptive, remove Saddam before he attacks. Also, when the US needs votes at the United Nations it’s often the NATO countries that vote with us. If the United States insists on taking votes at the U.N. and NATO for military incursions (Iraq, Libya) it will need partners along the way.

How many military bases could we keep in Italy without an agreement? Germany? Spain? Chances are, not too many. There may be a time when we aren’t able to house bases inside other countries. When that happens cooperation between nations is even more important for any conflict or peacekeeping mission, not to mention more expensive. Even the reluctant Turks have a U.S. Air Force base.

   

Despite the problems among members, the threat posed by Russian incursion into Eastern Europe is more real now than it was in the 1990’s. President Putin annexed (a nice way of saying “stole”) Crimea from Ukraine and went to war in Georgia a few years before that. It’s dangerous to oppose Putin if you live in the former Soviet bloc. Since the Soviet Union fell apart under Gorbachev in the late 80’s, a lot of diplomats assumed Russian was finished. Communism proved unable to hold together the disparate countries that fell under their control. It wasn’t in a position to expand; it lost former territories like the Baltic states and Georgia and Armenia. But Putin regained a lot of power that was lost in the chaotic 90’s. Mostly through energy contacts, he is exerting control over much of the former soviet bloc countries.

The roots of cooperation between Western Europe and the United States started after the war. A battle weary continent might have fallen under Stalin if not for that cooperation. After World War II the allies essentially made a bet, rebuild Western Europe and hold off Soviet expansion. By shoring up businesses in West Germany and reinforcing democratic norms, the influence of Communism would be restricted to Eastern Europe and the West under Capitalism. In this way, they kept a potential problem (Soviet aggression) contained and prevented another massive European war. This is like two fighting brothers drawing a line down the center of their shared bedroom and labeling their stuff. Over there is your side, here is my side. It helps to prevent major conflicts but practically guarantees the minor ones that characterized the Cold War.

 Communism feeds on desperate people who have neither rule of law nor freedom of movement. It’s an absolutist form of government that rewards brutality, crushes opposition and restricts religion. And it’s much easier to install in poor countries than wealthy ones. In other words the allied gamble was for prosperity. It worked. People know it the Marshall Plan because that was the where the big spending on infrastructure and aid happened. But NATO was an outgrowth of the same spirit of cooperation among democratic allies after the war. The U.S. was in the best position to offer aid as a bulwark against the chaos of Communism.

The best option today is to scale back the mission of NATO resembling something closer to the founding principle, by laying down markers to prevent too much Russian meddling. The Trump administration approved the sale of some weapons to the Ukrainian government at the end of last year. Sending weapons (although a small amount) is a signal to Putin that NATO opposes his incursion into that country. It's a good start at least.

President Trump should make sure U.S. ambassadors hold the line on spending. It is part of the original agreement after all. I’m sure the European leaders hate Trump’s brutally honest assessment. He needs to direct some of that bluntness toward the Kremlin. This Atlantic treaty should survive despite the problems we have with the lack of commitment from some of the members. The alternative is a strong Russia and a diminished role for the U.S. It may come to that, but it doesn’t have to.   

"Artemis" Book Review

 Weir wrote the book “Martian” which most people know as the blockbuster movie with Matt Damon. I never read it but imagined how difficult it would be to create a story on an environment which we know so little about. Weir is not “us” though; he is more engineer than novelist and sometimes gets lost in the science.

What I found interesting about “Artemis” is the economy that develops on the moon around the citizens. It’s similar to any small country or homogeneous society where one or two big companies dominate and everyone else works to support them. I’m a bit deficient in science so I had to take most of his descriptions at face value. Especially details related to oxygen in the atmosphere, what is required for welding in space and how to deal with fires on the moon.

At its core this is a story about protecting a colony from invaders. Not aliens invaders from another planet, just the usual corporate interests hoping to expand their holdings and crush the competition.

Imagine a small town with a steel mill in pre-World War II America and Artemis as an economy starts to make more sense. The mill employs most of the people in the town, they’re able to buy on credit and they exist as a community, with their own standards and laws. Artemis is the name of the moon city with around 20,000 people who call it home. Any self-sustaining group needs hospitals, banks, schools and anything required for living. Artemis has tradesman like welders and iron workers, retail employees to sell trinkets to tourists, and bartenders to help folks forget where they live.

One way it isn’t like a mill town is the tourism that keeps the place going. Tourists pay for once in a lifetime visit to see the city and see the famous 1969 landing spot where Neil Armstrong stuck a flag. The earth tourists stay in hotels and eat in restaurants like any other other vacation trap. The city itself is largely underground. The obvious lack of oxygen on the moon makes venturing out in EVA suits the purview of professionals, in this case a guild of trained astronauts.

The hero of the story is a Saudi girl (by birth) who has lived on the moon with her dad since she was six years old. Jasmine (Jazz) is a porter, skimming small amounts for herself and smuggling in contraband for wealthy residents. One day she gets a request from one of the city’s rich entrepreneurs to destroy some equipment owned by the only functioning aluminum plant. Apparently the moon is rich in bauxite which can be broken down to make aluminum. As a trained welder Jasmine is perfect for the sabotage; she can move around easily and access the pressure locks unsuspectingly and walk on the surface of the moon in her EVA suit. I won’t give too much else away but the basic plot involves locals (Atemisians?) fighting off the encroachment of crooked interests.

Andy Weir is a geek, so he is best when describing how to spot weld in a vacuum or how to rig a copper safety in an aluminum smelter so it malfunctions and boils the container (sorry, spoiler). He isn’t great at dialogue though and his heroine (Jazz) is a bit too selfish for someone concerned with the general welfare of the city she lives in. She holds grudges and is on bad terms with nearly everyone including her dad. Readers need to relate to the protagonist, sadly she wasn’t likable.

   

I could tell right when I started reading this would soon be a movie. Not because the characters are rich and entertaining but because of possibilities presented by a moon city. Think all the cool tech Hollywood will create for this. It’s exactly what made the “Martian” such a readily adaptable story for the screen. Take all the problems of a regular heist movie and put it on the moon. Add airlocks and pressure chambers, some cool rovers that can climb hills and tell a great “against all odds” tale.

Weir is the perfect writer to walk us through the technical glitches of working on the moon and explain the why’s of structural design.  I am betting this film is better than the book however. It’s a rare thing when anyone can say that but in this case the movie should at least be fun. The last few chapters of the book are perfect for action sequences.