Sadly, Newt Gingrich's plan for an American moon colony is probably illegal
By Ben ReiningaJanuary 27th, 2012, 4:35 pmComments (11)
Can you imagine playing "two truths and a lie" with Newt Gingrich? Like, imagine you didn't know him, and he said, "I once proposed an American space colony at a presidential debate on CNN; I had a turkey sandwich for lunch; and my hair is real." Who would ever guess turkey sandwich was the lie? No one!. (And yes, I have it from reliable sources that, though he may be a grandiose wingnut, Newton was graced with the hair genes of a majestic lion.) Because it is certainly and undeniably true that on Wednesday evening, Newt Gingrich stood on a nationally televised stage and defended his plan to build a permanent space colony on the moon, declare it "American," and send 13,000 of our countrymen up there so he can name it the fifty-first state and be president of the moon.
Sadly, however, we've learned that (other than the plan's obvious cost- and feasibility- and WTF?- and have-we-even-figured-out-how-to-do-that-yet-related issues), it's against the law. There's a treaty called the United Nations' Treaties and Principles on Outer Space which pretty clearly states that the moon doesn't belong to any one country.
But there's no mention in the treaty (I'm guessing; actual U.N. documents fall into the TL;DR category for me) of putting mirrors on the moon that you can use to selectively shine light onto the bad parts of cities, you know, to fight crime — which Gingrich has also proposed. So there's always that to hope for.
Commentarium (11 Comments)
United Nations Treaty, Schmunited Schmations Schmeaty. When has the US given a fraction of a turd about what the UN has to say?
You know what? You're right. Call it a flimsy pretense. I just wanted to write about the fact that we've got a presidential candidate who talks about building moon bases. Is that so wrong?
Maybe not wrong to write about it but your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. The Treaty prevents a country from annexing or occupying the entireity of the moon, for instance, but explicitly allows for colonies by member states. Take a look at Article VIII and XII. Declaring the Moon "American" doesn't contravene the treaty unless access to the moon is restricted. I don't think anyone took his secondary comments seriously.
Did you even scan the treaty before you wrote about it? It's available online and although it's not the easiest of reading, it's not that difficult. It's only 84 pages long.
@BenReininga: You just made Martin Landau cry. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Newt knows there's been a clutch of Nazis hiding on the dark side of the moon since 1945 and that they're just about ready for a second bite at world domination. We'll thank him in the end people!
Given how insistent they are (or at least claim to be) about cutting federal spending, I can't see how any of the Republican candidates could be in favor of such an expensive and risky project. Perhaps this is Newt's idea of a jobs program?
Where does Mr Gingrich stand on the issue of statehood for the District of Columbia" It already has well over 13,000 people; some of them are even conservative Republicans.
He voted against it! In Congress! He voted against statehood for DC!
DC has more people than Wyoming. By the way, I AM in favor of sending Newt Gingrich to the Moon
Seconded!
Thirded! Amend the Constitution and then admit it.
Now you say something