- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Special Report
Many Moons Ago
On the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, it's tempting to emulate William F. Buckley, who was asked how he would describe the event. "With silence," Buckley said. This defining human achievement soon had the effect of making such awe harder to come by. Those who grew up after Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface viewed walking on the moon as an accepted fact of life, and it quickly became absorbed into an age of wonders. It's said we're a postmodern culture, but it might be more accurate now to call us post-Apollo. The bar was set so high and so far that a generation came of age effectively shrugging its shoulders, as if its answer to the question "How do you top that?" was, "Don't even try."
If one is not going to take Buckley's vow of silence, though, he can start almost anywhere in taking stock of what half a billion people saw on July 20, 1969. It's worth remembering that the feat was the fulfillment of millennia of human imagination. Today, we're more accustomed to breaking through obstacles in a matter of years or decades. Consider that the Human Genome Project was organized in 1990 and completed its work in 2003. Often the ambition never even enters the public mind, things are moving so fast. People weren't crying out for cell phones or writing poetry imagining their invention. They just arrived. Many technological advances today have that after-the-fact quality to them. Only later do we note how, in ways big or small, the new things have changed us.
Apollo, what Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest crash program of all time," made a remarkable, decade-long sprint to meet the goal set by President John F. Kennedy to place a man on the moon before the decade was out. It had public support and it operated under the supreme pressures of the fixed timeline and the threatening competitor. The mission was inseparable from Cold War politics, as Kennedy made clear to his NASA head, James Webb, in a 1962 meeting. "Everything that we do ought to really be tied into getting onto the Moon ahead of the Russians," Kennedy said. He warned Webb that "otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space." It showed just how far Kennedy was, for anyone who still doesn't know, from his romantic, Camelot image. But Kennedy's executive vision was impressive.
We should also note the courage and skill of the Apollo 11 astronauts -- Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, and those who came before and after them. Their professionalism was never more in evidence than when Armstrong improvised the lunar module's landing when he saw that the designated landing spot was rife with boulders. After the successful touch-down, Aldrin asked each viewer to "pause for a moment and contemplate the events of the past few hours and to give thanks in his or her own way." (NASA was then fighting a lawsuit from atheist activist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who objected to the Apollo 8 crew's reading from Genesis in space.) Then, privately, Aldrin, an elder at a Presbyterian church, gave himself communion. When it was time to depart, Aldrin, as unflappable as Armstrong, noticed that he'd accidentally broken the circuit breaker that would start the main engine. Somehow, he had a felt tip pen handy, and used it to activate the switch.
It's striking to read the immediate news accounts of the 1969 landing, not only for their sense of wonder but for their assumption that the moon was just the beginning. This was best captured by the title of an article in Time: "Next, Mars and Beyond." Wernher von Braun felt that we could make it to Mars "as early as 1982." But instead of starting that push, after the Apollo program concluded in 1972, the U.S. space program downshifted. Wolfe points out that NASA's budget plummeted 40 percent from the mid-sixties to the mid-seventies, from $5 billion to $3 billion. The focus since the moon landing has been on "orbital" flights, exemplified by the space shuttle, that fly around the heavens. Many have criticized the nation's loss of interest in space generally, and manned flights in particular, after Apollo. It's another sign of our decline, they say. We should have reached Mars long before now.
Maybe. For all of the laments, though, it's hard to see how such complacency could have been avoided after the great moon shot. It seems inevitable that we would lose interest in space, at least for a time; inevitable that we would find the moon landing ho-hum, and blanch at the staggering costs of an ongoing space program; inevitable that we would turn inward again, after the most outward-looking of feats. Even a society not fraught with crises of faith, social order, and history would probably have felt the same spiritual deflation. It's an existential problem more than a cultural one, though we've done a good job, with our culture, of making it worse. We won't solve the mysteries of morale and imagination any more than we'll solve the mysteries of good and evil.
But the American sense of urgency about space hasn't quite died. In 2004, President Bush released his Vision for Space Exploration, which calls for a return to the moon in 2020 as the springboard for manned trips to Mars. The current NASA administrator has set 2037 as a target date for landing on Mars, but the European Space Agency seems determined to get there a few years earlier. Assuming these projections are realistic -- and I doubt one in ten people knows the first thing about them -- it will be interesting to see if American political leaders feel any compulsion to push the timelines. It's hard to imagine men like Kennedy and the leaders of the Apollo program allowing another power to beat us out by just a few years. They would stay up late and find some way to move into the lead.
But then, they were part of an era whose goals and convictions seem increasingly remote. The Times's A.O. Scott describes the "absence of feeling, the dearth of meaning, that accompanied the widespread awe and wonder" of the moon landing, and though he overstates, the outlook he describes has tended to predominate in the generation since. It's in our books and movies and politics, and it's helped short-circuit our efforts on Earth as well as outer space. We seem more comfortable today with ironic self-awareness, which has its virtues but insulates us from the hard choices great ambition demands. Self-criticism and rocket propulsion rely on different sources of energy.
I hope we do make it to Mars by 2037, or before. I hope we're first, and that I'm around to see it. There will be plenty of time for irony then, but only if we get there.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Rocco| 7.20.09 @ 6:52AM
I would like to be as optimistic, but since that time, we've created two generations of psychological midgets and idiots more anxious about this era's version of Juvenal's bread and circuses (welfare and "reality" TV). By mid-century, we may end up being, to take a cue from Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, like those generations of Romans who lived in the 8th and 9th Centuries AD among the still standing baths and forums, wondering what race of supermen built such things.
Appleby| 7.20.09 @ 7:33AM
America is more interested in Michael Jackson than it is in Mars. Canada has a small cadre of people developing space gear and systems for other countries to use, but it too is more interested in crying for *free* or *affordable* (which is Kanukspeak for Free) food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, medication and entertainment.
Sadly, socialism produces nothing but invoices. We just dont have the money left to do anything after we finish supporting the parasites on the gravy train.
Alan Brooks| 7.20.09 @ 7:48AM
if we can't colonize the antarctic, how then the Moon or Mars?
self deception of the first order on a massive scale.
Adam| 7.20.09 @ 8:11AM
The moon landings were great triumphs of courage and rationality for the individuals and teams of men who were involved. Real mean got back on those rockets and continued after Apollo 1 and Apollo 13.
But the moon landings were mostly a great socialist achievement. We became 'the government' instead of 'We, the people. The socialist message has not been lost. Indeed, it's become part of the language. With every colossal Federal expenditure, we are certain to hear, "Sure WE can do it. If WE went to the moon, WE can...".
I'm all for going to Mars, but let's do it without government involvement. If private enterprise can feed New York each day (and the people of every other US city), surely it can take us to Mars.
James Lollar| 7.20.09 @ 8:13AM
Though it is a dream of a dreamer, I prefer to think of the future of Gene Roddenberry's. Hunger gone. People free to explore their greater good. If we can dream of sending people to Mars, why can't we dream of solving the basic problems of the human race.
And yes, I am not ignorant of the thousands of technological advances the Apollo program gave us. And to think those guys went to the moon, navigating by an 8Kbit system!
Tim| 7.20.09 @ 8:44AM
NASA doesn't launch piles of money into space: it funds research and development and high tech manufacturing.
The stimulus bill's 787 Billion could have funded several Mars trips, instead it will leave nothing more enduring then miles of asphalt and decades of debt.
Think about it, forty years from now they will still be paying Obama's debt but with nothing to show for it. Will they remember him as fondly as Kennedy?
Aaron| 7.20.09 @ 9:48AM
What the Apollo program taught me was that with the right direction, Americans can achieve anything. The problem I have now is, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government to send people to Mars or back to the moon.
My tax dollars are to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
My tax dollars are not to domesticate the Sea of Tranquility. Perhaps someone is a little confused at NASA, been sniffing the O-ring gel maybe.
John - TMF| 7.20.09 @ 11:19AM
James, navel gazing leads to decay and death. The worlds problems cannot be solved. Period... end of story... The poor will always be with us - Jesus.
If nations do not explore, if mankind does not push himself beyond his physical limitations then he ultimately begins to die. His civilizations stultify and atrophy. His institutions ossify, and his imagination begins to die off.
1. If mankind does not reach Mars, we will die. We will be killed off, by some natural disaster brought on us from space in the form of a meteor strike... or from deep within the violent and ever dangerous sea of molten goo on which our cornflake island of existence rests.
If man does not reach for the stars we consign ourselves to extinction, just like so many other millions of critters who have temporarily occupied space-time with this world.
We can only improve the lot of those who which to improve their own lots. So, we must improve ours.
I sat on the floor of our tiny military quarters 40 years ago, after several days of frenetic activity. My friends and I had built every model of the Apollo that could be imagined... the launch was performed dozens of times with a huge 144th scale Saturn V. The docking and extraction from the 3rd stage happened in dozens of quarters up and down the seawall at Fort Monroe.
We all whooped it up cheered... slapped fives...(no high fives back then...) when the crew annoucned "... Houston, the Eagle has landed." We didn't know of the drama of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (who were creatures of a heroic dimension) playing with their flight path to avoid disasters.... (no robot could do that, I might add.)
And then that evening... my mother, father, and sister and I sat in our humble living room... watching ABC and Jules Bergmann (My dad hated Cronkite with 10 passions....) . We saw, live, on TV the most amazing feat of mankind's exploration... and we knew it. We were witness to the culmination of tens of thousands of years of mankind staring at the heavens and wondering what was out there... making up stories to sooth himself... to dream...
It is time for us to quit staring in our depression over what seeming perfection that we can never achieve, and re-visit our dreams of the seemingly impossible things that we can do.
Exploration into the unknown is a sovereign act. No corporation or individual can or will make such bold steps into unknowns and return much of anything.
We should have had a full fledged working mini-colony on the Moon by now, and from that staging facility could use the low lunar gravity to do things with telescopes that would dwarf Hubble... and would have been the saging ground for this decade's landing on Mars.
Instead we stared into our lint filled innies and whined about how mean the world is.
Sad, we were so close to the world of Gene Roddenberry we just failed to realize that it came from GOING OUT THERE.
R/John - TMF
JAH666| 7.20.09 @ 11:28AM
Unbelievable! The America of dreamers and do'ers that put men on the moon has become the America of deep-sleepers. Agreeing with the posters that have also noted on this forum that welfare addiction and pop-culture have replaced striving for greatness and new frontiers with mediocrity and a quest for more government handouts is sickening. I've been reading the articles and response forums triggered by the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 and am appalled by the tone and utter stupidity of most of them. Edmund Hillary said to detractors of the quest to climb Everest, when asked why humans should do something so dangerous that had no real societal gain; he said, "because it's there". What other reason do we need to return to the Moon, go to Mars, the moons of the gas giants and onward? We'll learn to explore and live on inhospitable worlds, just as we've learned to explore and live at the South Pole and the ocean depths. Vision and courage is all we need. I don't think we'll find it in government conference rooms and legislative offices. Since the end of Project Apollo, the US government has only proven that it has no will to do what is visionary. The dreamers and do'ers that will take US citizens to the Moon, Mars and beyond will come from the private sector, assuming we have a private sector in a few years that will be allowed to do so by an increasingly restrictive federal government.
P.S. That was really a great line that the poster above had: "Sadly, socialism produces nothing but invoices."
Tony in Central PA| 7.20.09 @ 11:37AM
As much as I loved the Apollo program, I see no need at this point to try to emulate it with a human mission to Mars. The reality is that humans are terrestrial creatures, the cost and difficulites of having people travel and remain in space for extended periods make the benefits questionable at this time. Until we can come up with some alternative means of propulsion that makes human space travel faster and safer, it seems like an impractical excercise.
We've done some really great exploration with unmanned vehicles since Apollo, and I wish we had put a little more effort into it at times. I know the ISS is sort of a flagship of international cooperation, but I wonder how much its drawn away from very doable science missions over the past 10 - 15 years.
rssg| 7.20.09 @ 11:40AM
We simply don't have the industrial capability anymore (engineering and manufacturing) that we had back then. Plus, we don't have the national will - there is little pride in being American and reaching, achieving for great things.
Today, we have one to two generations brought up that the most important thing in life is to "equalize outcomes" for every race, ethnic group, homosexuals, immigrants/foreigners, etc.
We're no longer a meritocracy, we're a group rights, social-democracy. How pathetic.
Tim| 7.20.09 @ 11:59AM
Space travel is actually easy and rather affordable-the danger and expense is getting from ground to (Earth) orbit. At $10,000 per pound, flame and gas spewing rockets accelerating at 3 gravities are the only techology we have. After 50 years and more tinkering with them, they have not gotten any cheaper to fly.
There is one candidate to replace the rocket engine-the so-called space elevator. We should be putting resources into developing this device, a machine that would be capable of lifting (and lowering!) slowy and safely to orbit mass at (according to some estimates) less than $100 per pound.
With an elevator, a Mars launch or Moon mission would entail great deal less expense and risk.
Bram| 7.20.09 @ 1:13PM
I remember Barbara Boxer's stump speech in 1992. She promised to cut military and NASA spending and spend it on social programs. It was the stupidest thing I've ever heard and she has succeeded beyond my imagination.
Government funded space exploration has been swallowed by the black hole of social spending and guaranteed failure by battalions of bureaucrats.
Adam: You are right private enterprise should be leading the way in space explorations. But, ever increasing government spending is crowding out private investment in all areas.
Ted: I agree – the Space Elevator is man’s next great engineering feat and will open up space to exploration without the costs of chemical rockets. But nobody in DC has that kind of courage and foresight these days.
Tim| 7.20.09 @ 2:08PM
The space elevator will be a Panama canal in the sky. It would be the greatest economic and strategic asset on planet Earth. That is why, once the technology is developed, it will be built. If not by us, then by Russia, China or India.
Liberal Reader| 7.20.09 @ 2:15PM
The Moon Landing is a firm, stern rebuke to the muling, whining right, that maintains, in the face of such evidence, that everything government does is evil or corrupt or incompetent.
Sorry guys. It's only that when Republicans are in charge.
Bram| 7.20.09 @ 2:23PM
The technology for the elevator is pretty close. The only tech challenge (there are many many engineering challenges) is the cable material. I keep hearing we are close to being able to produce materials of adequate strength. I don’t know enough about it to believe or dis-believe the reports.
cdc| 7.20.09 @ 2:44PM
I am hugely in favor of more space exploration but there is no point in just sending people to the moon or mars just to plant a flag. We know we can do that. Now we need purposeful plans and goals not one off stunts. It's the difference between Lewis & Clark vs Wagon trains, railroads, and highways.
The most important first steps are devlopments in robotics. Automated explorers to put together a very detailed map of the solar system, every planet and moon completely imaged and as many asteroids as possible being identifiable by trajectory and composition. And robotic construction equipment to prepare bases for later crews. This can be refined on earth and then deployed.
An efficient method of reaching orbit is required, probably a space elevator, and fully functional long term life support system. There are a lot of essential steps, having some guy plant a flag somewhere is not important.
Richard Baker| 7.20.09 @ 2:57PM
Tim & Bram:
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book years ago on this method of of reaching space based upon a Russian scientists' work. The name of the book was "Fountains of Paradise" and I was amazed at Clarke's description of this device. It's absolutely doable. When the Restoration occurs, we'll get back to this sort of thing.
Bud| 7.20.09 @ 3:29PM
"Liberal Reader" extols the joys of government, putting forth the example of the Apollo program as exhibit A.
Note that the Apollo program, wondrous though it was, was a very focused program with a single, limited objective - prove out the feasibility of sending people to the moon, landing, performing pre-planned experiments, and returning safely to earth. Apollo by itself did not entail the construction of a permanent supporting infrastructure, such as the U.S. national highway system. It was never intended to be by itself reduced to practice, though the benefits of still having a successor the Saturn V booster would have been a fine outcome.
Apollo did not make broad promises, as was done for the "War on Poverty", "Universal Health Care", or other Utopian, risky social schemes favored by Statists.
Apollo, the Panama Canal, and a few other exceptions to the rule are the exceptions to the broadly applicable rule that the quickest way to burn money and see nothing concrete happen is to give it to the Federal Government.
Bud| 7.20.09 @ 3:33PM
sorry about that double post - HTML is a fine way to emulate 3270 page terminal technology.
rssg| 7.20.09 @ 3:48PM
3270 technology.....LoL. I haven't thought about that in a long time. IBM, IMS DB/DC, DB2, JCL, MVS - used to program with those back in the early 80's, when they were "old" then!
Believe it or not, one can still make a living doing that today, though I haven't in at least 18 years now.
Tony in Central PA| 7.20.09 @ 3:54PM
Liberal Reader again with the chest - thumping. I'm pretty sure this current group of Democrats won't accomplish anything close to the Apollo program, although they may have an instrumental role in bringing about something our many enemies have found impossible - - the collapse of our nation.
Tim| 7.20.09 @ 4:03PM
If something as important as space exploration is going to "belong" to one party or another this nation is already well on the way to collapse.
Pingback| 7.20.09 @ 5:44PM
VIDEO: Miami to Protest Against Taxes & Gov. Spending – 7/21/2009 (Miami Protesta Con links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Thom| 7.20.09 @ 6:30PM
Having worked at a NASA facility and on the Shuttle testing program I think the chances of the current NASA getting back to the Moon by 2020 is remote for numerous reasons. Beyond the obvious lack of money for such an endeavor, the current Bureaucracy isn’t capable of launching the Shuttle without damaging it repeatedly. Everyone knows what the problem is but no one wants to speak truth to power thus we keep risking enormous losses because of essentially politics. From Kennedy’s challenge to make the first trip till completion, there wasn’t a lot of what one call politics or political correctness in the process to meet a single qualified goal. Today NASA is just an Administrator for make work projects in low orbit. The scale of operations and cost to go back to the Moon in fiscal 2009 dollars would make the F-22 program look cheap. Going to Mars by 2037 and getting back safely will be both enormously expensive and risky for just the first crew let alone follow on missions and crews. There would have to be at least a rescue mission and crew on stand by for the first mission. Can’t make that trip and back in something the size of a VW Bug. I’m not suggesting it can’t be done but simply that the cost of it will prohibit it under ideal conditions with the technology we haven’t been perfecting for the last 40 years. Add our current spending trajectory off a cliff and there is simply no political justification for expending what it would take to make just one manned mission to Mars let alone several to the Moon in order to build a base/launch platform for Mars. I remember what the original cost estimates for the Shuttle missions were supposed to and the turn around times…. Like most Government estimates and promises they don’t turn out to be even the down payment. Our effort to get to the Moon first was unique and in a unique time where we had the resources to expend. Those days are gone, at least for the rest of my life on this planet anyway. I endorse the concept but we’ve spent way too much to be able to also make this effort given what it will really cost to accomplish safely (within reason).
Roy| 7.20.09 @ 6:58PM
Actually, Liberal Reader, there were fairly few Republicans in the government of the USSR.
Richard Baker| 7.20.09 @ 8:06PM
To America 3rd world status:
By all means, America is an awful place. I'll tell you what, since this place is so bad I'll buy you a First class Airfare to anywhere you think it's done better. The only proviso is that you have to STAY. My friend, I learned long ago that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You haven't yet figured out Mark Twain, have you?
Thom| 7.20.09 @ 8:12PM
America 3rd world status, I spent 18 cents for the same Mc Donald’s Hamburger and fries in Brazil in 1986 that I spent $1.00 here for. Do you know why it cost 82 cents more here than there? A gallon of gas cost about 30 cents there too vs. a dollar here. Same question for gas cost difference? When you know the answer to these questions you’ll quit complaining about what we spend and ask why it cost so much instead. We spend a fortune on education here too and get a similar disproportionate outcome. People in India do my job for between 1/10th and 1/5th today what I make in USD. Want something cheaper, move to India or Dominica or Costa Rica and live off their currency and wage scale.
DaveS| 7.20.09 @ 9:14PM
Saw Shepard, Glenn, loved the Titan II/Gemini combo, White's spacewalk, Apollo 1's demise, magnificent Saturn V liftoffs (which the under 35 crowd never saw), Borman around the moon, and Apollo 11. Weren't we great then - and we were young and proud. Rockets were seen differently. Everything (success and failure) was springboard to the next thing. I miss those days, countdowns, my toy Atlas rocket, and heads tilting to the sky. For a fraction of the bailout money we could regain our edge and our chops.
DaveS| 7.20.09 @ 9:32PM
No 'big' space shots today: the go-to-court environmentalists would claim falling big rocket parts would kill a few fish or plankton. Big effing deal.
velihall| 7.20.09 @ 9:47PM
The challenge of where to spend the resources is certainly an interesting dilemma. Several posts have jumped on the need to fix health care. The problem rests largely on individuals in our country. When I see people complaining about health care there are not a marathon-runner types complaining. Bad health does happen to people who take care of themselves via diet and exercise - like the astronauts for example - but many complaining today could afford to lose 20-150 pounds. Increased government expenditure will not do that for you or for me. Each individual has to do that on their own.
The challenge is that we are on an astounding course of throwing trillions of dollars to solve problems that individuals and families need to fix. Health care, housing, credit card debt, etc. The root causes rest with greed and lack of personal discipline.
Now, neither and individual nor a family alone would likely be in a position to make it to Mars, or to support and army, or to prosecute criminals, etc. But we need to leave the government focus on those things and stop financing "government-owned solutions" for personal problems. When I give someone else the responsibility to fix my problem, I try to make them the owner. Unfortunately, many of the people we have somehow voted into office WANT nothing more than to control and to own. Don't let them, or anyone else for that matter, own your responsibility for personal success.
[There will be some few circumstances that conflict with this to some degree, but those cases will not be the rule.]
designer replica handbag| 7.21.09 @ 2:08AM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap
handbags, some of them are genuine leather
handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic
designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool
of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder
bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest
brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton
handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags,
Replica Prada
handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry,
Dior,replica Chanel
handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce &
Gabbana,Replica
Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest
standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we
guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at
low price you'll find anywhere.
FeralCat| 7.21.09 @ 4:05AM
Alan Brooks| 7.20.09 @ 7:48AM
if we can't colonize the antarctic, how then the Moon or Mars?
self deception of the first order on a massive scale.
I am working on my second million. I gave up on the first.
FeralCat| 7.21.09 @ 4:19AM
rssg| 7.20.09 @ 3:48PM
3270 technology.....LoL. I haven't thought about that in a long time. IBM, IMS DB/DC, DB2, JCL, MVS - used to program with those back in the early 80's, when they were "old" then!
Arrg!!
And DLI!
And don't forget COBOL! OC7! OC4! 322!
FeralCat| 7.21.09 @ 4:20AM
and CICS!
Bram| 7.21.09 @ 7:39AM
Richard Baker - I read Fountains of Paradise while studying in Sri Lanka. Good book.
Appleby| 7.21.09 @ 7:46AM
Richard Branson is our greatest hope for making space travel an everyday event. I predict that in my lifetime (and I am in my 60s) he will have a space hotel in orbit and finance it with the money he made hauling tourists into space.
America will pay attention when the first Celebrity gives birth to twins on Richard Bransons Space Hotel, which he will arrange just as quickly as he can, and everybody will want to go there.
Richard Branson knows what sells.
Richard Baker| 7.21.09 @ 12:46PM
Appleby:
What's amazing is that Branson is so cheery about his "futurism" and that optimism will be the spur to move forward.
House your homeless| 7.21.09 @ 1:01PM
I have a first eddition of Mark Twain. America is a SHIT HOLE full of criminals. and IDIOTS.
Richard Baker| 7.21.09 @ 2:14PM
House your homeless:
If the US is so terrible, why do you stay? Please allow us to show you the door. Try Zimbabwe or Namibia. Wonderful societies, both. How about Bangladesh or Yemen?
Pingback| 7.21.09 @ 2:33PM
Political Relief » Mars and the Midlife Crisis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ed Hardy Swimwear| 7.24.09 @ 1:46AM
i like this
clae shoes| 7.24.09 @ 11:48PM
Welcome to visite www.shoes-base.com (Support PayPal) we update our website . Various Sizes available; Top Quality; Novel design; jordan air yeezy shoes Attractive appearance; Express Delivery.Every weak you will find many new style items from it thanks if you have any questions Please feel free to contact us.We will reply to you within 24hours.
http://www.shoes-base.com
www.shoes-base.com
Msn: shoesbase@msn.cn
Send email to: shoesbase@yahoo.cn
air force ones puma shoes clae shoes all star basketball shoes shoes online buy shoes gucci shoes beach shoes fidel shoes jordan jf retro air yeezy size 13 ed hardy xl women ed hardy tiger shirts
cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 6:58PM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.28.09 @ 10:41PM
lv outlet , commonly referred to as
louis vuitton outlets, or sometimes shortened to
louis vuitton handbag outlet has become one of the most
sale louis vuitton luxury brands.
LV Damier Graphite handbaglook
vuitton salel like
handbags for salegood
purses for salenice
dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 11:26AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Richard Watches
Replica Romain Jerome Watches
Replica Tag Heuer Watches
Replica Tissot Watches
Replica Tudor Watches
Replica U-Boat Watches
Replica Ulysse Nardin Watches
Replica Vacheron Constantin Watches
Replica Versace Watches
Replica Watch Accessories Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 9:22AM
Read this article, I see Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
lot of things
r4| 10.29.09 @ 7:13AM
I believe that time has come that NASA should think over a oneway trip to MARS.... Bcoz there is no way that we have technology to go and comeback....