Among those arguing for universal suffrage was John Adams of Massachusetts. While a land owner himself, he thought that this could lead to an elitist, two tier society like the nobility/commoner society in England that they were desperately trying to break free of.

If you want a good read, try David McCullough’s brilliant “John Adams.” It will take you a while to get through it’s 800 or so pages, but you’ll come away with a new understanding that there’s absolutely nothing new about the political infighting and power plays that we see today. In fact, Jefferson doesn’t come off that well. McCullough paints him as a manipulative dandy who, while brilliant, was quite self-centered. Most of the things that we give Jefferson credit for actually came from Adams’ writings decades earlier. The reason we don’t remember him that way is that Jefferson had an outgoing, gregarious personality whereas Adams was an abrasive SOB who felt compelled to speak his mind on all subjects like any good New Engander

While Adams was the author of much of the political theory that this country is founded on, we always remember the popular guy. See what I mean about nothing changing?

- Jack

Enjoy your stay!

John (lifetime inhabitant of the Soggy City)

is this talk open to the public? I’d love to hear you do this one again!!! (FOLKS: they LOVED it in Florida when Phil gave it last summer… )

BTW, Phil…you really do need to update the Bad Astronomers calendar.

During the course of the conversations, it became clear that she actually wanted to believe that the landings were a hoax. Similarly, she wants to believe that aliens have made contact with us, and the stars have something to say about our nature. These things make the universe more interesting to her. This desire is foreign to me; I don’t understand why believing in a coverup is more desirable than believing (the well-supported fact) that we have landed on the Moon. How can it be more wondrous to choose your beliefs and accept any support for them than to examine the universe and delight in what you find there?

She finally said of the Moon Hoax, “Well, all of this seems to make sense, but if there’s nothing fishy about it then why are there so many questions?”

My response was, “How many of these peoples’ objections have to be proven to be without merit before you stop listening to them?” Had they been trying to prove astrology was a hoax, I doubt she would have paid them any attention. (I haven’t directed her to the excellent article here on the subject; she frankly doesn’t care whether it actually works.) Since they were trying to debunk science, though, she was ready to believe they had a point but were fumbling the details a bit.

Perhaps the biggest challenge the proponents of science face is the mentality that we are trying to remove the beauty from life. “Cold, hard facts,” they’re called. The mad scientist creates monsters, while the psychics help solve mysteries. Science and engineering are said to be tough fields for women to succeed in, and the men there are said to be socially inept. Atheists, you know, tend to be quite antagonistic toward the religious. …None of it is more than a charicature of truth, but how do we demonstrate that?

In any case, continue the good cause!

This was the very subject that I wrote to you about several years ago, when a friend freaked me out by saying that he was an HB – you gave me the great piece of advice that it’s good to keep your mind open, but not so far that your brains fall out. I would like to second the idea that you make a podcast of this – I’d be sure to burn it on CD and pass it around to any people I know who fall victim to this sort of absudity.

I can’t tell you how many sites there are (I’m sure you know this) that spew this nonsense, and yet how few and far between are systematic debunkings. It’s almost as though there’s a flippant disregard amongst scientists (“No one would possibly believe this!”) and this results in a de facto silence on the matter, this silence is perceived as lacking a strong counterargument, and is causing a disturbing number of otherwise reasonable people (IMHO) to question the Moon landing, the sometimes Apollo program in general!

If you’re in Seattle either Friday or Saturday and have some free time, feel free to drop on by the NSF AAPF symposium again. We loved having you last year, needless to say.