The reason for this blog however relates to the Huffington Blog. I had never heard of it before, as I gather the usual subject matters seem to be pariochial US stuff. There seems little interest here in Aust.

Nevertheless I found it intriguing that just before I opened this particular post re Ms Huffington, I had been watching TV, and with the program ended, it had gone on to another called “The L Word”- series return ( I did not know it had gone away, never having heard of it), but it had some reference to Adriana Huffington and lesbianism. Not interested I switched channels, and with “Curb Your Enthusiasm” on in the background ( the ep. with the sheet with the hole), I proceeded to check my mail. The Blog came up and I was surprised to see THAT name again- Huffington. Rechecking seemed to confirm it. Quite a co-incidence I feel, to have the two touching down in my living room at the same time. As a matter of course I then logged on to the Huff. Blog but didn’t find much to interest me. ( But at least Larry David in ‘Curb…’ was funny if predictable for the last ten minutes I saw). Oh yes I also bit the bullet and downloaded the 69Mb version of M 101—— absolutely beautiful, that got my mind off other things! That is in another post, but thanks for the opportunity.

Ivan

March 1st, 2006 at 11:11 am
I see this as a blessing and a curse. Blessing because you’ll get more readers. Curse because I always hear conservative radio portray Huffington Post as out of touch liberal, secularist, freedom hating terrorist lovers, blah, blah, blah. I think it makes it easier for opponents (like the ID folks) to label you as “leftist scientist.”

Small minds think in small ways. I’m not referring to you, Lucid, but that kind of thinking and compartmentalizing. The HP links to George Will–nobody is going to accuse him of being “leftist.” Will is a true, blue conservative, not a neo-conservative, and he doesn’t write things in his columns such as, “Freedom hating terrorist lovers,” or such polarizing nonsense that is patently false propaganda.

I agree with you that the ID folks are more than happy to use whatever they can to sway the confused puplic into flocks; those flocks will help their religious, economic, and legislative goals at the voting booth or on the school board. Fortunately there are religious conservatives speaking out against the IDers. Fortunately there are those who are saying, “Hey, I’m not so sure I want to be part of a club that would have you as a member.”

But I don’t think Phil comes off as very political. He doesn’t like what this administration is doing in regards to science, for sure, yet I have no idea what Phil thinks about a lot of major issues. Haven’t a clue. I have some ideas, but it’s mostly inference. His focus, at least here, has always been related to science.

I get tired of those who so readily want to put others in a box and label them.

If the right wing wants to take me on because they perceive me as liberal, then they are free to do so. The far left wing would undoubtedly also have issues with many things I say. As an independent thinker, I adhere to no one strict philosophy. I find some liberal arguments compelling, and others not. The same is true for libertarianism, conservatism, and a whole passel of other “isms”. I find no need to stick to one ism blindly; in fact, I feel just the opposite is needed.

You will find that pinning me down to a simple sound bite ideology will be difficult, if not impossible. The real world is complicated, and doesn’t necessarily fit into our too-small boxes.

I would have personally preferred to see you stay more “independent.” You know, an unbiased voice of science that’s beyond reproach. I fear you may have made it harder to make your point because of your association with HP.

You give science a good voice. The new megaphone damages your credibility, I think.

I wish you the best of luck and will continue to read. Just keep it about fighting the good fight for science and tread on any party lines necessary. Cheers!

Well, Phil and everyone else interested–as I was checking Spacedaily.com and you should go here:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Lawyer_Debunks_Space_Real_Estate_Business.html
The Staff
Los Angeles, CA (SPX) Feb 27, 2006

“Before you purchase a certificate offering the Moon to the love of your life, check with space law expert Virgiliu Pop. In a groundbreaking book, “Unreal Estate – The Men who Sold the Moon”, Mr. Pop comes with legal arguments as to why one cannot actually buy extraterrestrial real estate.”
“During the past decade, mass-media has reported about individuals and companies that have claimed ownership of various celestial bodies and, in most of the cases, subsequently offered them for sale to the public. Nowadays, the number of “owners” of extraterrestrial realestate certificates from different companies is in the range of several million.”

I spotted this one:
Black Holes: Narrated QCShow lecture by Phil Plait recorded live.
aics-research.com/lectures

Please do a story on International Star Registry…these folks are insane.
Just heard another of their Advertisements on WCBS 880 NYC…

And, while your talking to Mr. O’Donnell to try and bring back “West Wing”
on cable.

NBC is a loser!

- so does she call you “Bad”?

Seriously, it’s great to have a scientist and a skeptic blogging on the huff post – it should help counteract the Deepak Chopras and David Kirbies who post so much garbage over there.

I was wondering when you would get around to it…:)

R2K

Like I said, too, I don’t agree with all the bloggers. Chopra probably hasn’t said something correct in his entire career, and I find him to be a pseudoscientist of high order. Maybe I can debunk him in my blog.