****

Oh & Dave you were right about one thing :

“Nice Presidental Candidate you got there, Phil.”

Yes Barack Obama is the best US Presidential candidate for a very long time. There hasn’t been an American politican this good since JFK!

But you reverted to your usual completely wrong status when you ranted about your next president -lets hope :

“The only thing of note he’s done in his life, apart from hanging around a racist church for 20 years, to is fund the murderous ideas of a terrorist.”

Not true.

1) Obama has been a Senator passing,asmending and preventing many bills from becoming law.

2) Obama won the Democratic Party nomination for President beating Hiliary Clinton and a whole lot of others.

Plus

3) Obama’s written a book, “Audacity of Hope’

4) given inspirational speeches, and
5) his campaign has changed the culture creating new hope for the UnitedStates and World communities.

As for your Retardican parties mud-slinging slanders – you are just plain wrong and offensive.

Obama’s church may not be your or my idea of the perfect church (ceraytinly notmine as I’m against all organised religions) but racist? Not exactly. More like anti-racist actually in having affirmative action maybe & from recognising the realities facing the African -American community.

And the “weatherman” humbug? Sheesh. Obama was 8 at the time and hardly knew the guy- then or later. If that’s not the Retardicans going for a new low in longest dirty scraping at the bottom of the barrel gutter politics then I don’t know what is …

CORRECTED VERSION :

Uh Dave : “You know what anti-science is, Phil?

Yes – he does. I’d trust Dr Phil Plait’s word on what’s pro & anti-Science any day given he’s been a practicing scientist & science educator for a very long time now.

As opposed to ..well what is your expertise in that area Dave?

Dave : “If we go by his actions, Barry Obama is the most-antiscience presidental candidate ever.”

Nonsense Dave! Are you from a parallel planet or something? Have you forgotten the current “president” George II already? (Or the Shadow President Cheney who’s pulling his strings?)

The most anti-science candidate ever is “Shrubya” George W. Bush the Mad with that Planetarium-hating & creationist-partnering fool McCain as the next worst.

BrianX Said on October 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
“quasidog:

It may seem obvious to you (hell, you’d think it looks obvious by looking at fivethirtyeight or electoral-vote), but I don’t think anyone on the Obama side is calling this one in the bag, not after the widespread corruption of the last two cycles. In fact, a great many of us liberals are convinced that the fix is in. Hell, I still think the fix was in in 2006 and the Democrats retook Congress in spite of it.”

I’ve got a horrible sinking feeling that the Republican party re-election plan involves war breaking out before the end of Bush Junior’s term with an incident being provoked or manufactured. My prediction is either the USA directly or its proxy Israel will be launch a war on, probably Iran and, possibly, also other unfortunate South-West Asian nations before Bush the Lesser departs.

Then they’ll use the “we’re at war,can’t change, patriotism as scoundrels last refuge” excuse to either re-elect their puppet ( & I don’t think Bush or McCain are more than figureheads on a very dark and nasty iceberg) – or postpone or even cancel the election entirely.

Maybe this sounds paranoid but its not like there’s no precedent -Iraq for one. I wouldn’t paut itpast them -the NeoCon’s really are that evil.

I think the best thing the Democratic party – & Americans in general – can do now is act immediately to impeach Bush and his puppet-masters without any delay!

Why this hasn’t already happpened is something I find utterly staggering given the seriousness of Bush’es misconduct and the crimes of his regime.

Nations posing you no threat have been wrongly invaded and destroyed.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people – & US soldiers – have been killed and maimed and had their lives ruined.

Yet this “president” gets away scot-free!?

Whereas Clinton was facing impeachment simply by lying over a consensual sexual affair that hurt no-one physically and only a few people emotionally.

How the blazes does that make any sort of sense?!!

I can’t dispute the evidence you presented to back this claim. Literally, I can’t.

Yes -I’fd trust DrPhil Pliat’s word on what’s pro& anti-Science anyday given he’s been apracticingscientist &scienceeducator for a very long time now. As opposed to ..well what is your expertise here Dave?

Dave : “If we go by his actions, Barry Obama is the most-antiscience presidental candidate ever.”

What? You froma parallel planet or something? Have you forgotten the current “president” George II already? (or the Shadow President Chgeney who’s pulling his strings?

If anyone’s the most anti-science ever it’d be “Shrubya” George W. Bush the Mad with that Planetarium-hater & creationist-partner incontinent old man McCain the next worst.

BrianX Said on October 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
“quasidog:

It may seem obvious to you (hell, you’d think it looks obvious by looking at fivethirtyeight or electoral-vote), but I don’t think anyone on the Obama side is calling this one in the bag, not after the widespread corruption of the last two cycles. In fact, a great many of us liberals are convinced that the fix is in. Hell, I still think the fix was in in 2006 and the Democrats retook Congress in spite of it.”

I’ve got a horrible sinking feeling that the Republican party re-election plan involves an incident being provoked or manufactured and war breaking out before the end of Bush Junior’s term.

My bet is either the USA directly or its proxy Israel withUS support and backing and soon enough involvement will be launch a war on, probably Iran and, possibly, also other unfortunate South-West Asian nations before too long.

Then they’ll use the “we’re at war,can’t change, patriotism as scoundrels last refuge” excuse to either re-elect their puppet ( & I don’t think Bush or McCain are more than figureheads on a very dark and nasty iceberg) – or postpone or even cancel the election entirely.

Maybe this sounds paranoid but its not like there’s no precedent -Iraq for one. I wouldn’t paut itpast them -the NeoCon’s really are that evil.

I think the best thing the Democratic party – & Americans in general – can do now is act immediately to impeach Bush and his puppet-masters without any delay!

Why this hasn’t already happpened is something I find utterly staggering given the seriousness of Bush’es misconduct and the crimes of his regime.

Nations posing you no threat have been wrongly invaded and destroyed.

How does that figure?
What the Blazes is wrong with you people??!! .

If we go by his actions, Barry Obama is the most-antiscience presidental candidate ever.

When he and his unrepentant terrorist pal Bill Ayers ran the Woods Fund together in the late 90s, they cut off and refused funding to improve mathematics and science education, instead funnelling vast sums of money to far left indoctrination.

Nice Presidental Candidate you got there, Phil. The only thing of note he’s done in his life, apart from hanging around a racist church for 20 years, to is fund the murderous ideas of a terrorist.

To sum my position up, I can’t think of very many things that the govt handles well. Federal money rarely comes without strings attached, and I’m not comfortable with taxes being used in non-prescribed ways. If we have to agree to disagree on that, then thats fine.

We can quite rationally agree to disagree on this issue, and to a certain point I would agree with this statement on its face, in some cases. However, that’s a far cry from your initial contention that this case is flat-out unconstitutional. And that was really my main point of contention. My apologies if the conversation took a more confrontational tone than it needed to.

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pressroom/pr/2008_10_08_AdlerStatement_aboutdebate.pdf

Not an appeal to authority but a reference to the Constitution making the Supreme Court the Final Arbiter of Constitutional Law. As the Constitution makes the opinion of the Supreme Court the final say on such matters, and the Supreme Court considers the General Welfare clause valid, it is therefore valid because the Constitution makes it valid through the power it grants the Supreme Court. This may seem to be circular logic but remember that we are not debating science we are debating law. As such, if the final arbiter of Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court, considers the General Welfare clause valid then the authority given to them by the Constitution itself makes it valid.

Apologies, but my first comment was a one sentence, unsupported response to a one sentence, unsupported blog post (“I told you so”), which seemed appropriate to me, since I do not believe that opposing federal funding of this or that makes me inherently ‘anti-science’. Its fine that you felt the need to respond in defense of your position, but next time, please don’t just imply that the other person is an idiot just because they don’t hold a seat on the highest court in the land.

To sum my position up, I can’t think of very many things that the govt handles well. Federal money rarely comes without strings attached, and I’m not comfortable with taxes being used in non-prescribed ways. If we have to agree to disagree on that, then thats fine.

@Jose
“I think that intentionally misrepresenting and belittling funding intended to refurbish a historically important planetarium qualifies.” Ok, this I did not realize… If its a Federal Landmark, then I would concede that Federal dollars could be spent on its repair. Is it?

In this particular instance, McCain is being anti science education. Ridiculing a star theater projector as an “overhead projector” is to diminish it with ridicule. Fit that in with McCain’s previous statement about “planetariums and other foolishness.” Fit that in with his selection of a Creationist for a running mate. Fit that in with the use of the Creationist talking point “teach all sides” used by both McCain and Palin. Fit that in with his comments on the bear DNA study, in which he mockingly turns it into a joke.

We could have a serious discussion about how to fund a star theater in a non-profit planetarium. We could have a serious discussion about the merits of the bear DNA study. But it’s clear that someone effecting such a posture of ridicule doesn’t want to have a serious discussion.

That said, I personally don’t want the federal government funding the project right now.

it opens us up to less noble abuses in the future. Does that at least make sense?

I understand your concerns. And I agree that vague language like “general welfare” leaves open a lot and does present potential for future abuses, not to mention ones that have already happened.

Suffice it to say, though, your opinion that Congress has no business funding the planetarium is based solely in opinion, at this point. If you feel that it violates the Constitution and that you have suffered some wrong because of it, you (or a group of people) could try your luck to challenge the issue on Constitutional grounds. If you win, it will no longer be just opinion, but rather it’ll become the law of the land. If you lose, then Congress will continue to be free to spend federal money how they see fit to spend it.

That’s one of the prices of living in a free society. You give the government the freedom to act how it sees best for the betterment of the country. Sometimes, their choices align with your opinion. Sometimes it seems that they overstep their bounds. The fact of the matter is, though, that unless the Supreme Court rules on the interpretation, the government can continue to work in a manner that it sees as a proper and justified interpretation of the Law.

@Jose
“And it’s a big, fat, obvious gap. Were they idiots?” No not idiots, but I think it certainly possible that it was an oversight. You have to admit that its too vague to be authoritative either way, and I personally find it presence odd in such a meticulous and specific document. Why include any of the specifics if you’ve got a the catchall “All the good stuff”.

“That’s funny. You don’t actually believe that, do you?” It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I didn’t see anyone post anything that proved that education was not one of the powers “reserved to the states, or the people”, which goes to the heart of my argument.

I think that intentionally misrepresenting and belittling funding intended to refurbish a historically important planetarium qualifies. Also, choosing a running who believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution doesn’t help much.

My intent here was never to bait or shout down, so I regret the tone that this has taken.

Then perhaps you should take another look at your initial post, which is what I think set the tone for this argument in the first place:

Phil…. constitution…. read it…. The federal govt has absolutely no business funding anything like this.

Do you think that was the way to start a constructive debate on the subject? I know it got my defensive dander up…

I don’t think it’s so much that McCain is calling the planetarium project wasteful that Phil believes makes him anti-science, and Phil, correct me if I’m wrong, but rather the attitude that McCain is taking toward it. In addition to calling it wasteful, he belittles it by referring to it as an “overhead projector”. This has combined with his other pet target for wasteful spending, the bear DNA project, which, again, he belittled by making a comment about bear parentage or involvement in a crime. He has also taken, if not a definitive “yes” to the teaching of creationism/ID in the science class, at least a rather wishy-washy stance on it.

Has he picked out any other earmarks as wasteful that are not related to science or education? I ask because I don’t know. If he has, has he also treated them in a similarly demeaning manner?

It is the combination of these factors that, as I see it, has led to Phil calling him anti-science. And again, BA, correct me if I’m wrong.

I will concede that perhaps phrasing the question “what makes you smarter than the Supreme Court” may come across as condescending. I don’t want my point to get lost in those semantics, so maybe I could re-phrase the question for you in a less confrontational way:

On what basis do you insist that your interpretation of constitutional law in this matter is correct, despite no support whatsoever from the Supreme Court?

My intent here was never to bait or shout down, so I regret the tone that this has taken. I am not opposed to the spirit of your goals. Quite the opposite in fact. I want kids to be fascinated with the grandeur of the cosmos as much as anyone here. I just disagree with the notion of imposing the lethal force of the federal government to attain such goals, if for no other reason, it opens us up to less noble abuses in the future. Does that at least make sense?

Or maybe the framers were smart enough to realize that they could never account for every situation where federal spending might come into play, and specifically included the phrase “general welfare” should such an occasion arise. You say the framers were far too skeptical to allow for such a gap, yet they did. And it’s a big, fat, obvious gap. Were they idiots?

And if your interpretation is in fact what they intended, why didn’t they say something like “Unless something is specifically mentioned by this document, it falls out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.” Again, were they idiots?

I’m apparently the only one who can find anything in the damned thing that supports my argument.

That’s funny. You don’t actually believe that, do you?

Directly from Article 1 Section 8, “…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;…”

Look, Promote the Progress of Science!!!! It is in the Constitution. Now, I admit that this is considered the Copy Right and Patent clause but it clearly shows that the founding fathers did indeed intend that the Federal Government support the Sciences. And considering that adding a listing of absolutely everything that the founding fathers might consider important into the Constitution would be an endless volume of extraneous information that even if comprehensive in 1787 (as unlikely as a comprehensive list would be) would have required continuous update on at least a yearly basis, bringing our all ready unwieldy Congress to a complete standstill, and still not be capable of keeping up with half of the things that a General and Open interpretation allows for.
It seems to me that our founding fathers believed in a common sense approach to governing. Besides that, well over half of Supreme Court Justices have always disagreed with you (including the ones appointed by our founding fathers) and use the Preamble to expresses in general terms the intentions of its authors. It is sometimes referred to by courts as evidence of what the Founding Fathers thought the Constitution meant and what they hoped it would achieve. I’m sure they have a little more experience in Constitutional Law than you and I. I’m going to side with the Supreme Court on this idea.