In a speech at Florida’s "space coast" (the region near Cape Canveral and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center), Presidential candidate John McCain said he would give NASA an extra $2 billion to fund the Shuttle-to-Constellation transition.
That’s nice to hear. I’m pretty concerned over the next few years for NASA, and more money will help, though it cannot solve all the problems.
But I’m not jumping up and down with glee over this, for a couple of reasons. One is the reason McCain gave for the need to pump up NASA:
“My friends, we just saw the Chinese. We saw them in space,” McCain told an afternoon rally of about 2,000 people. “We’ve got competition. We’ve got to stay ahead. We will be the first nation to Mars.”
That is absolutely 100% the wrong reason to do this. It’s not a competition! I mean , of course it is to some extent, but if we get in the same Cold War mindset that led to Apollo, in 15 years we’ll be right back to where we are now: after an incredibly expensive race, all we’ll have are flags and footprints on the Moon or Mars and no sustainable access to space. We have to do this the right way, make sure we maintain our ability to achieve orbit and beyond, and move from very expensive, rare launches to more common, less-expensive ones.
Racing the Chinese is a waste of money. Cooperating with them, cooperating with the other space-faring nations, means we all win.
And I’m not thrilled with a swipe McCain took at Senator Obama:
“I’ve always been a strong supporter of manned space flight and NASA,” he said in a community that is home to many in the field. “If I’m elected president I won’t cut NASA funds like Sen. Obama.” McCain aides noted that Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, had promised to pay for education programs by delaying the Constellation space program, which is meant to fill the gap to the next space vehicle, only to backtrack later.
Yes, Obama did say that… a year ago. Since then he has educated himself on the importance of what NASA does, and how it ties in with other aspects of government (international cooperation, our public face, and so on). Obama has said several times that he supports NASA, and in fact has also promised a similar amount of money to keep NASA going during the Shuttle/Constellation gap.
So McCain once again has said something that is at best misleading, and is better characterized as a lie.
And as an aside, as BABlogee Robin Ferguson pointed out to me, if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin is the titular head of NASA. Hmmmm. I’ll add that we survived four years of Dan Quayle, so I suspect that NASA would somehow muddle through.
And while I am loathe to believe campaign trail promises, the good news to remember here is that both candidates appear to be supporting NASA. The realities of a recession and a massive national debt may change that, but if the President supports NASA that’s better than the alternative.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
Taking campaign comments seriously at this stage in the game is somewhat silly. At this point, both candidates will pretty much say whatever their audience at the time wants to hear. Of course McCain was going to tell a bunch of Floridians he would boost NASA’s budget. If he were in Orlando he would have promised tax cuts to boost the tourism industry. If he were in Miami he would have railed against Fidel Castro and the pinkos in Cuba.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Phil, I disagree. I would argue that competition got us to the moon in the first place. After the competition stopped, apathy set in and we did not go back. Healthy competition is always good in business, sports, life. The outcome are stronger competitors (and some weaker ones do fall away). If competition to be first (by Fermi lab and LHC) helps us find the Higgs Boson sooner, great. If it helps usher in new medicinal discoveries (from competing pharmacuetical companies, great. If it gets multiple and independent (and thus redundant) nations flying probes, people and cargo into space, great. Competition is not a bad thing at all. It motivates and inspires and that, more than money, is what is needed.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Obama has NOT educated himself. give me a break. he has PANDERED himself.
he will say and do anything to get elected. you think it was JUST A COINCIDENCE that obama declared his new agenda to a crowd in florida a few weeks ago. riiiiiight. typical washington politician.
also, are you saying that obama put forth a major policy statement WITHOUT educating himself a year ago??????
Yeah you’re not bias.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
I’d say that McCain is pandering again, and as you point out, misleading people on what Obama said and is saying vis-a-vis NASA and space exploration. At least Obama took the time to find out what’s happening with NASA and what our money goes for in that direction. McCain only seems to be for something when he’s in front of an audience that’s also for it that he needs to court for votes.
If McCain can’t learn enough to remember that a planetarium isn’t overhead projector, I have little reason to expect that he’ll remember that he wanted to gut NASA before he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
I agree with RL… competition is a healthy thing. But it shouldn’t be the entire raison d’etre for our space program. That kind of thinking got us some “grab’n'run rocks on the Moon” missions that got dropped as soon as the goal got reached. We need sustained interest and investment in space exploration and science; competition can help spur it that interest and investment, but it shouldn’t be the only spur.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think the government should get out of this and leave it to the private companies. AresI and AresV aint going nowhere anyway. Elon Musk and hopefully some other visionary entrepreneurs should get the price for access to LEO down first. From there you are halfway to anywhere. Of course if Polywell Fusion works out, we will all see fusion powered rockets sore SSTO and maybe even SSTM^2 (Single Stage to Moon and Mars) 15 years from now. Yeah I am dreaming, but hey I think that this has more of a chance of success than Ares I has
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
I’m beginning to wonder what NASA is thinking on many fronts- According to Griffin’s press conference yesterday one large problem NASA is having is coming from outside critics – including those on “internet blogs”. “The criticism….is still hurting”.
I thought I was reading The Onion but it turned out it was MSNBC.
msnbc.msn.com/id/27311485/
Griffin also stated that at his junior prom Becky turned him down for a dance, and therefore the next Mars mission will be temporarily suspended while he undergoes therapy.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am
“I would argue that competition got us to the moon in the first place. “
Phil, that is the correct argument when one examines the historical context of the original space race.
Consider our lack of hurry to put anything into orbit prior to Sputnik. Von Braun’s team could have done a year prior to the Sputnik 1 launch with their Project Orbiter. Instead, Eisenhower decided to fund Project Vanguard, which was extremely far behind Redstone from an engineering standpoint in 1957.
As a matter of historical fact, Von Braun had mothballed a Jupiter at ABMA (Army Ballistic Missile Agency) in Huntsville specifically for putting it on the pad at CCAFS (Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) very quickly when Vanguard failed — as he expected it to. Therefore, it is no small coincidence that that rocket was used to launch Explorer I.
The moon race was far different. Von Braun and his team were competing directly with the Russians, not with other agencies in the US government, and as a result, from 1960-1963 Von Braun and his team (no longer with ABMA, but NASA instead) set out designing C1 through C5.
You know the C5 design as “Saturn V.” It was born at NASA as a competitor to the Russians.
No one in the world has built a working launch platform the equal of Saturn V to this day, long after the initial space race. That too is no coincidence. Ares-V (if built) will exceed it, over fifty years down the road.
As for the flag-and-footprints folly, what do you think that lunar scientistsused to determine that there was a lot of Helium-3 on the lunar surface? The Apollo samples in the Lunar Sample Laboratory.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Can someone explain to me why McCain promising an extra $2B to NASA is NOT in direct contradiction with his proposed spending freeze?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hmm, cooperating with space-faring nations besides China maybe. I don’t like the idea of working with a country that makes the illegal stuff the Bush administration has done look tame by comparison.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’m actually impressed with Phil’s relatively fair reporting of McCain’s commitment to NASA and manned space flight. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop and Phil never let his obvious political bias interfere with reporting about NASA and McCain.
Now if we can get the rest of the press to act this way we might get a true vetting of the candidates for a change.
Although I wish you had reported more about Obama’s threats to basically cancel the Constellation program if he was elected, but I agree in that Obama seems to have seen the error of his ways and has changed his positions as far as this is concerned.
And whether or not you believe that competition is a good or bad thing for the space program (I believe it’s good for the reasons RL stated), we should all agree that further strides in human space exploration will help to inspire the next generation of scientists.
Neil Degrasse Tyson explains this more eloquently than anyone else I’ve heard in the following video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZxPSad77U&feature=related
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
Phil,
“And as an aside, as BABlogee Robin Ferguson pointed out to me, if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin is the titular head of NASA. Hmmmm. I’ll add that we survived four years of Dan Quayle, so I suspect that NASA would somehow muddle through.”
Did Robin provide a source for this?
As far as I know, the National Space Council (which was chaired by the VP) ceased to exist in 1993. I am not aware that the VP has any current connection to NASA.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
In the context of supporting Science and republicans…
Here is something from the cathegory “so stupid, you can only find it in america”:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026793.000-creationists-declare-war-over-the-brain.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_mg20026793.000
I am sure that Phil, whilst it being out of his metier will happily write something about it (geez sometimes I would love to make a blog just to vent about idiocy like that). This would not have been possible had the last 8 years been under a democratic president (or at least a republican like Powell who seems to have at least some braincells left unlike G.W.).
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
My friends like to point out whenever Senator McCain attacks Senator Obama and pork barrelling, he talks about the projector for the Adler as pork. We all know pork is bad.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Beacon, Obama did the right thing: when he learned more, and found out his stance was incorrect, he changed it. That’s what an educated and rational person does. McCain, on the other hand, has changed his stance when it was politically expedient, like going from calling Jerry Falwell “an agent of intolerance” — which he is — to giving the keynote talk at Liberty U. That’s pandering.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Really, if NASA funding is important you need to support McCain. He understands the importance of our aerospace industry. He knows that Americans are a competitive people, and pointing out that if we sit on our hands others will pass us by is both true and fair. Certainly the Chinese view space as a competitive area, they have very frank about that.
Obama was going to kill (ok, ‘delay’) Constellation until he decided to try and compete in Florida. What that shows is that he’d rather spend NASA money on things like the Annenberg Challenge.
NASA will be better off under McCain than Obama. There is just no escaping that fact.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Recently John McCain sent a letter to the President about the strategic challenge that our reliance on the Russians poses to the United States, and the need to preserve the option to continue shuttle flights beyond 2010,” Mario Diaz, McCain’s southeast regional communications director, said in a statement. “We must also redouble our efforts to advance progress on the Constellation program by committing to the additional funding needed to speed up progress to close the space gap.”
Obama 8/2/08: “We need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I’m going to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system – a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector. And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon and Mars, and beyond , let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again, make America stronger, and help grow the economy right here in Brevard county and right here in Florida. That’s what this election is all about. It’s about raising our sights, seizing this moment, and reclaiming our destiny in this country.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin is the titular head of NASA. ”
and BIDEN would be better????????
lol
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Phil,
And Obama has never changed his stance when it was politically expedient?
Come on, be serious. I admit McCain has done it but to say that Obama HAS NOT is just ridiculous. He went to a church for TWENTY YEARS that regularly spouted complete garbage about america and white people and now that he’s running for president he threw the head pastor under the bus.
They are both doing what politicians do. Neither is innocent.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Tman, do you really want to go down the road of talking about what churches spout to their congregations? (No matter what color or creed?)
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
ccpetersen,
Considering McCain is the LEAST religious of the three candidates, sure. I’m agnostic myself, I could care less.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
While competition may be a good thing in a national pride sort of way and spur funds, it seems like a typical comment of McCain’s Reagan-wannabe Cold War rhetoric. The emphasis should be on the science and the future as well, and of all things he picked on a planetarium that many people from outside of Illinois visit, like KSC. The Orlando Sentinel blog wrote that McCain’s record on voting record on NASA funds has not been consistent. I think Obama is a more persuadable person, but Congress is supposed to represent its constituents and many people still feel that NASA spending is frivolous contrary to actual percentage of the budget. Derek points out McCain’s contradiction calling for a spending freeze and cutting waste from the Defense Department. Who knows what he’d support – he’s flip-flopped on so many issues including
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Obama promises way too much, depending on where he is. Then will back track later when he figures out afterwards he shouldn’t have. Basically, the problem with inexperience.
Seriously. If you believe Sen. Obama can fund all of these promises then you are a fiscal ninkompoop. Even with tax increases, right now it isn’t close to funding individual/family basic health care (unless basic health care just means 2 checkups annually).
If Sen. Obama had a few good friends in NASA I think he may help it out. However, his record shows he spends where/what he knows. He doesn’t know science, and spending money at NASA doesn’t help the ‘little people’ he pretends to support.
Realistically, if you believe in the Democratic Party basic ideals, then you are fiscally against NASA, since it doesn’t offer the public any immediate gain. That is a DUH.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
This seems to be the standard for politician’s that change their minds- If you are a supporter of them and in their ideological camp they are “rational” and “making informed decisions”. If you are not in their camp or don’t like them personally they are “pandering” and “flip-flopping”.
Then of course is the third route – those of us that think they are both being politically expedient and doing what it takes to get themselves elected. There is a rather long list of issues that they both have rationally flip-flopped on while pandering on informed decision making.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Governor Palin’s bio says her father was a science teacher and she her degree is a Bachelor of Science so she probably knows more about science than Biden who has a Bachelor of Arts and a law degree.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I think competition is good in this case.
It gives both sides (or all sides) a drive, an enthusiasm to get to work.
Competition is a means of determining who’s best for the job.
It’s a means of getting ‘the best and the brightest’.
And America was viewed positvely during that time: “America has put a man on the moon!”
And who knows what cool technology we’ll develop during this ‘competition….!
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Well, while as far as I know National Space Counsel has not been reinstated it’s still a terrifying thought to think of Palin having anything at all to do with NASA. If you think Bush is anti-science you haven’t seen anything yet.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Oops – hit post too soon!
While Palin has a science degree she has certainly not used it. She actively spouts completely anti-science things. She is actively creationist, denies evolution, denies global warming, is against stem cell research, the list goes on. The sad part is she has the education to know better and refuses to use her brain. While McCain alone may not be bad for NASA adding Plain and her right wing christian views most certainly is.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@Yu Mi – Bachelor of Science doesn’t necessarily mean you know science. PolySci is a BS degree, but most PolySci’s wouldn’t know the business end of a microscope.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
@ Beacon: you terrorist!
Oh wait, that’s Obama.
and . . .
Yeah you’re not bias
I don’t think he ever claimed not to be (and I am ignoring the obviously poor English).
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Listening to McCain’s speeches, sometimes it sounds like it’s still the Cold War, we’re still in Vietnam, and there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. For somebody my age, it’s both nostalgic and appalling.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
pfft, the presidential election is so last month. Obama is going to win, no doubt about it.
What we should be hearing more about are the senate races. It is certainly possible that the senate could end up having a 60 democratic majority after the election. That would make it filibuster-proof, so the democrats (woot!) could pretty much be free to pass anything they want.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Tman:
“I admit McCain has done it but to say that Obama HAS NOT is just ridiculous.”
Phil didn’t say that. Not once.
drksky:
“PolySci is a BS degree, but most PolySci’s wouldn’t know the business end of a microscope.”
Wow. Talk about a generalization. And an insulting one at that. I have a degree in PoliSci, AND I know my way around sophisticated optics. (My current academic project involves the poltical economy of science)
Actually, scrap that. Most of the people in my department ARE fairly ignorant of science and it’s findings. *sigh*. Nevermind.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
@ Stark–
“she actively spouts completely anti-science things. She is actively creationist, denies evolution, denies global warming . . .”
Where is she “actively creationist” and what does that mean?
Where has she denied evolution?
Where has she denied global warming?
Or are these just general perceptions about her? Do you have something specific that she has said to back up these 3 observations?
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
@Tman – I did say MOST.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic:
As someone earlier in the thread put it; If you are a supporter of them and in their ideological camp they are “rational” and “making informed decisions”. If you are not in their camp or don’t like them personally they are “pandering” and “flip-flopping”.
With Phil you can just replace the words with Obama and McCain. Here, I’ll do it.
When Obama changes his mind about funding NASA his decisions are “rational” and “making informed decisions”. Whenever McCain does it he’s “pandering” and “flip-flopping”.
Seriously, it’s plain as day. I was amazed that Phil said anything even remotely positive about McCain to begin with.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
@Tman:
That’s a dishonest tactic and you know it.
Sure it works if all you do is completley change the words around. Here, I’ll do it:
“When Jesus changes his mind about funding cartoons his decisions are “rational” and “making informed decisions”. Whenever Ba’al does it he’s “pandering” and “flip-flopping”
You’re suggesting that Phil is employing some weird cut-and-paste punditry, when it is YOU that’s doing that.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Tman–
“I was amazed that Phil said anything even remotely positive about McCain to begin with.”
Yeah, but then he made a rational informed decision.
Or maybe he flip-flopped.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
And moreover, it’s his blog, he can say what he wants.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic,
It’s not dishonest at all. Phil just did it in the comments to this thread.
He wrote this:
“Beacon, Obama did the right thing: when he learned more, and found out his stance was incorrect, he changed it. That’s what an educated and rational person does. McCain, on the other hand, has changed his stance when it was politically expedient, like going from calling Jerry Falwell “an agent of intolerance” — which he is — to giving the keynote talk at Liberty U. That’s pandering.”
This is ridiculous. They both pander when it’s politically expedient and it’s dishonest to claim otherwise. I’m not necessarily defending McCain, but the hypocrisy is pretty evident.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Some Canadian Skeptic:
Yeah, it’s his blog. He can endorse whomever he wants and I have no problem (nor should I) with him doing so. I’ve been a huge fan of Phil’s for years ever since he took on Hoagland and the nutcases over the Mars conspiracies.
But I disagree with his political views and since this is an election year I’m going to comment about it on his blog.
He can ban me if he wants to, no big deal. I don’t see why he would as I’m not trying to be insulting or derogatory, but hey- it is his blog.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
While Palin has a science degree she has certainly not used it.
Sarah Palin has a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Idaho.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
@Tman,
How is that hypocrisy? You’re conflating two issues: The issue of changing of one’s mind and the issue of the motivation behind that change.
You’re flat-out making stuff up to paint Phil as a hypocrite when he quite rightly pointed out how quickly, and recklessly McCain dances around in his positions. More to the point, Phil has provided ample evidence of Obama’s increasing scientific literacy over the course of this campaign, and McCain’s repeated ignorance and even hostility (remember the planetarium nonesense?)
I love this idea that whenever a politician changes their position it’s automatically pandering. I wonder where that came from (methinks it solidified itself in the consciousness when Kerry was mocked as a ‘flip-flopper’ in 2004).
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
@Tman, well, I doubt Phil would ban you. You’re not dragging this thread down to youtube levels (as often happens whenever politics and/or vaccines are brought up)
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic:
I’m not making anything up, I just quoted Phil directly. He said when Obama flip-flopped about funding NASA it was “an informed decision” and when McCain flip-flopped on Liberty U. it was “political pandering”.
If you don’t realize that they were both flip-flopping for political expediency then I don’t know what else to tell you.
This is what politicians do. Are you really trying to argue that Obama doesn’t do this too?
If you are, you may be interested in this bridge I have for sale.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
@Tman
“This is what politicians do. Are you really trying to argue that Obama doesn’t do this too?”
No, and that is my point. Phil never said that Obama is above pandering. It’s a straw-man argument, one that you are close to accusing me of.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic:
I’m not close to accusing you of it, I’m just asking you if you believe it. Phil made the point that Obama’s “change of heart” was an “informed decision” and used an example of McCain’s pandering to denigrate him. He’s making the point that Obama makes informed decisions when he changes his mind, and McCain flip-flops when he does.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
On pandering and whatever other terms you wish to call it by:
This is what politicians do, because it is what they must do, to be successful. And that is because WE, the voters, reward them for it, and continue to reward them for it.
Do not blame the politicians for pandering. They do so only because we let, no encourage, perhaps even compel, them. And any other rational person in the same situation who wishes for success would do the same.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
And we also PUNISH the ones who do not pander, causing them to lose the elections.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Let’s step back for a moment. Both candidates have had a lot to say on a variety of scientific issues in various settings; to be honest, there really isn’t that great a difference between them, and neither one has made major bone-headed anti-science statements (or at the very least, they both have had some missteps on science-related issues).
I don’t put much stock into what pols promise on the campaign trail. Maybe it’s better to look at what their records have been in the past.
McCain at least has a legislative record in Congress that one can examine. Obama’s record is obviously limited–that’s just a fact. But coming from the left-wing of the Democrat party, and being influenced by the likes of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, it is hard to envision Obama being as sympathetic to NASA (for example) as perhaps McCain would be.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Amphiox:
I agree 100%. It’s THE MAIN PROBLEM with our political system. There are too many people that you can’t say no to to get elected.
I think that McCain will be more adamant about pushing for an increase on our manned space exploration, which I feel is the most important job for NASA right now. If you can tell me why Obama would push harder than McCain, I’m all ears.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
@ David D.
“But coming from the left-wing of the Democrat party, and being influenced by the likes of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, it is hard to envision Obama being as sympathetic to NASA (for example) as perhaps McCain would be.”
No fan of Obama here, and I for don’t believe much of what any candidate is going to say at this stage in the election.
But could you please let me know how exactly Obama has been “influenced by the likes of Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers”?
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
@Tman
“I’m not close to accusing you of it, I’m just asking you if you believe it.”
That’s like asking me if I would vote for John McCain if I knew he had fathered an illigitimate black baby (oops…that already happened in 2000).
Phil never made the point that every time Obama changes his mind he’s doing for the most rational of reasons, and you need to stop making that fallacious connection if you want to keep this honest. He pointed out ONE decision shift by both McCain and Obama. And in that ONE instance, Obama’s shift was fact-based on a fact-based issue. McCain shifted ideologically towards the religious right. Fact-based issue vs. ideological issue. I should think that this distinction was as clear as day…evidentally I needed to spell it out. I’ll repeat: it was ONE shift from the both of them. ONE. Not all.
Both McCain and Obama make decisions based on pandering and rationality (or as best as they can mimic). This is obvious to the point of inane. NO ONE said that Obama is above pandering. Not Phil, not me. Maybe that kind of talk flies on the Huffington Post, but it did not occur here, and you should acknowledge that you built a straw-man.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
@kuhnigget–
The Obama-Wright connection is well-documented; “spiritual mentor,” officiated at Obama’s marriage, source of book title, etc. That counts as influential in my book.
The Obama-Ayers connection is not as obvious, but Obama did begin his political career in the Ayers/Dohrn living room, and apparently has had more than just a neighborly acquaintance with Ayers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Talk about Obama-Ayers and Obama-Wright all you like. Republican poll numbers have declined ever since the subject came up. Face it Republicans: your Swift-Boat sank this cycle.
Instead, people want to talk about jobs, the economy, healthcare and other issues meaningful to them.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
< < And I’m not thrilled with a swipe McCain took at Senator Obama:
[...]
Yes, Obama did say that… a year ago. Since then he has educated himself on the importance of what NASA does >>
Pretty surprising (or not) that Obama would not have the common sense and knowledge that Nasa isn’t some disposable element that can be milked (any or all of its ~1% of the budget) to feed some other comparatively bloated social program (one or two orders of magnitude larger in the budget) that’s mismanaged in the first place…
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“That counts as influential in my book.”
It doesn’t in mine. Unless you can point out specific actions that Obama has taken that reflect the clear points of view of those others, there is no sign of influence at all.
Being in the same room with someone does not mean you are influenced by them. Was Donald Rumsfeld influenced by Saddam Hussein? Because, you know, there is a very famous picture of them shaking hands.
Please, present your evidence for that “well-documented” assertion.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
@Charles Boyer
Let’s not forget about the Keating Five. If the democrats played like the republicans in this race, the Keating Five would be all over the airwaves. Thankfully, the vitriol on the right more than makes up for it, and the Obama-Biden uses it only sparingly. (Mostly Biden)
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
@kuhnigget–
I’m pretty sure that Obama and Wright were more than just in the same room together.
I don’t know that I can point out “specific actions” that Obama has taken that reflect the views of these others, any more than you can point out “specific actions” he has taken that repudiate the views of these others. Most of what Obama has written or said about Wright has been favorable, at the very least.
I find it hard to believe that if you refer to someone as “mentor,” you are not in some way influenced by them.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
@kuhnigget–
I don’t know–maybe you’re right. There is absolutely no connection between Obama and Rev. Wright.
What was I thinking?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Charles Boyer Says: “Von Braun’s team could have done a year prior to the
> Sputnik 1 launch with their Project Orbiter. Instead, Eisenhower decided
> to fund Project Vanguard, which was extremely far behind Redstone from an
> engineering standpoint in 1957.
Charles, a remarkably reasoned and historically accurate post in this thread! A couple of expansions, though.
The main reason that Eisenhower did not let von Braun launch the first satellite is that no one had established the legal sovereignty of space. In other words, how high up does legal “airspace” go? Ike was worried that the Soviets would claim that any satellite overflying their territory (and it’s impossible to NOT overfly every country on Earth at latitudes plus and minus of your launch inclination) was an attack and could use it as an excuse to launch an invasion. His biggest mistake, done for propaganda purposes, was that once the Ruskies had made the legal point moot by launching first, he didn’t let the ABMA (von Braun) team do it. Instead wanted to use the non-military Vanguard, which, as you pointed out, was still about a year from operational status at the time. It’s a good thing that von Braun had that “aging test” missile just lying around ready to go!
> The moon race was far different. Von Braun and his team were competing
> directly with the Russians, not with other agencies in the US government,
> and as a result, from 1960-1963 Von Braun and his team (no longer with
> ABMA, but NASA instead) set out designing C1 through C5.
>
> You know the C5 design as “Saturn V.” It was born at NASA as a
> competitor to the Russians.
While the Saturn series was Wernher’s project, the heart of the C5, the F1 engine, had actually been under development as an Air Force project since about 1958. That’s the reason we were able to complete such a major jump in technology in so short a time. Today I doubt if we could get the EIS for a project like that done in the same period.
- Jack
PS – Loved you in “Algiers”!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
David, I never said there wasn’t a connection. I just don’t see anything in Obama’s record that indicates he has in any way acted in accordance with Wright’s more radical statements. If you can point to something, I’d be glad to know about it. As I said, I’m no great fan of Obama. But I’m an even lesser fan of smear tactics and guilt by association.
BTW, Obama has never repudiated belief in alien spacemen visiting the Earth in flying hubcaps, either. What are we to make of that? Does that mean he will hand over the reins of government to our alien overlords?
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
After promising a spending freeze in the last debate, McCain continues to promise more spending.
Sheesh.
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Y’know, the whole Obama-Wright and Obama-Ayers stuff is getting so old and tired. Yes, there was an association. Obama may have learned some things from either or both of them. Does that mean that he thinks the same way they do? Does it mean he is going to look the other way if they do anything out of line? No.
Let me illustrate. I have a friend who is an avowed anarchist. This person thinks that any form of government is corrupt and should be completely done away with. They also believe in some rather extreme measures to make necessary changes. So, am I also an anarchist? Do I think that extreme measures should be taken to overthrow the government? Far from it. I think that, as far as governments go, we have a pretty decent system. Yes, there’s corruption and other flaws, but anarchy is totally unfeasible. As to extreme measures to change what I don’t like? Nope. Work within the system. Work within the community to get ideas changed, but never at the expense of others’ rights or safety. So, I disagree on a number of things with my friend, and, if they were to do anything out of line, you bet I would hold them accountable. It would hurt, but I would hope that I can help them change so it doesn’t happen again and so we can stay friends.
So, are Wright and Ayers exreme? Yes. Has Obama associated with them? Yes. Has he been influenced by them? Perhaps, but whether any such influence is in a manner detrimental to the integrity of the U.S., I haven’t seen any evidence of such yet.
The company a person keeps does say something about them, but it should never define them. Obama is his own person, and as yet has not shown any tendencies toward aiding in terrorist activities or spreading racism and intolerance. Let the freakin’ Ayers/Wright issues drop!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
No kuhnigget–you are right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Rev. Wright to have had ANY influence on Obama. NONE at all.
I understand your point–the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” thing. But again, the majority of what Obama has had to say about Rev. Wright over the years would hardly fall into the “disapproval” category. And again, if you refer to someone as a “mentor,”–well, does that imply to you that they are somehow NOT influential in your life?
Now, I don’t recall Obama spending 20 years hanging out with our alien overlords, but if he did . . .
. . . was Bat Boy there?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@ToddW–
I have friends that have odd viewpoints on life also–probably we all do. But look at it this way–let’s say you had a friend who repeatedly told racist jokes on a regular basis, and you continued to consider him a great pal, and maybe even a mentor, even praising him on occasion.
That alone would not make you a racist, but there are a lot of people who would legitimately question your judgement in associating with such a vile person for a long period of time.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Obama should distance himself from the rantings of Reverend Wright, and has.
McCain should distance himself from the rantings of Pat Robertson and has not.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Ideally, I am sure that everyone agrees that the President or VP should have an Astronomy degree.
(BTW The Keating Five were mostly Democrats – including astronaut John Glenn.)
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
McCain has been working behind the scenes not to demolish the tooling at Michaud and doing other space access issues all year, despite running for president. So this probably isn’t a pander.
While co-operation is ideal, becoming reliant on foreign partners becomes problematic when they do things like invade small neighboring countries.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Phil…I call BS on McCain. This is just a last ditch effort on his part…Besides there was something about a planetarium…waste of money maybe?
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Yu Mi,
Does Democratic malfeasance excuse Republican malfeasance?
Party loyalty is destroying this country, pure and simple.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
@Yu Mi wrote: “Governor Palin’s bio says her father was a science teacher and she her degree is a Bachelor of Science…”
Nope. She went to the University of Idaho and completed a “Bachelor of Science” degree in “Communications-Journalism”, not science. What little science she has commented on is gleamed from her father and tied in with her rightwing pseudo-religious-politico-expediency. i.e. Her comment to “teach both” (science and creationism) in classrooms is merely a pseudo-science creationist wedge for undermining actual science. Free, inquiring minds are a danger to future servants and recruits. The far-right hates critical thinkers.
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
@ David:
Again, it is notimpossible that Wright influenced Obama. Please stop arguing against points I haven’t made. The issue is, have Obama’s actions been affected by Wright’s radical statements? You haven’t given me a single instance in which they have.
Calling someone a mentor doesn’t count. Maybe Wright was an ideal father figure. Do you have evidence he wasn’t?
And even if he planted strange ideas in Obama’s head, unless Obama’s acted on those ideas, they don’t mean a thing! As my mom used to say, “Any nonsense you got in your head is fine and dandy, so long as it don’t come out of your head.”
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
So for my job I actually collate and write up space news every day, so I’ve been following this pretty closely.
McCain has had a more steady position on this, but its gotten a lot murkier recently. This recent NASA support has only been said in FL, and I can’t find any example of anywhere else where he said he would increase NASA funding, highlighting only the across the board spending freeze. Couple that with the RNC website which listed increased NASA funding as a liberal waste of money, which McCain has never spoken against. Every time it is, he points at Obama’s earlier position.
As for Obama, he did hold the position of freezing Constellation funding for a time (but he was always in favor of the scientific probes), but he changed his position months ago in early August, although this:http://tinyurl.com/5vgnj8 would indicate it was changing for awhile. Since then it has been the same. This could have been a pander, but his actions since then have been very revealing. In regards to the Soyuz waiver, Obama wrote to Congressional leaders to get the waiver pushed quickly through, when it could have stalled for months, leaving the US without access to the ISS in a couple of years. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin even sent him a letter directly thanking him and attributing the passage to him. As far as any reports go, McCain never answered if he ever received a similar letter when asked.
Both of their policies on NASA are very similar, but Obama put a detailed space policy out weeks before McCain did. Both have space reps advising them: Obama a former NASA Associate Administrator, as well as a NASA researcher on his science board, and McCain a JPL engineer, although at one debate he was represented by an Apollo astronaut who had no official capacity. Again, it looks like McCain was a little later to the game in this matter if you compare events mentioned here: http://tinyurl.com/5vgnj8 and here: http://tinyurl.com/4ewns4. Does timing matter if they both end up at the same place?
Take it as you will.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
@kuhnigget
I do agree with you that I haven’t brought out any specific ACTIONS of Obama’s that demonstrate Wright’s influence. My belief/opinion is that he was definitely influenced, actions or not.
But 2 last points:
–if this was McCain sitting in a pew in a racist preacher’s church for 20 years, I doubt that there would be any polite discussion about “influences” or “actions.”
–going by your line of thinking, one can be, for example, a jihadist, or a Scientologist, or–gasp!–a Creationist, but unless you engage in some specific action in regards to those beliefs, everything’s okay in your book.
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Less then 2 weeks left is the only thing going through my mind right now.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
“going by your line of thinking, one can be, for example, a jihadist, or a Scientologist, or–gasp!–a Creationist, but unless you engage in some specific action in regards to those beliefs, everything’s okay in your book.”
Um, well, yeah. What business of mine is it what a person has going on in their head? It has absolutely no affect on me unless they take action based upon that thinking.
89 days, 14 hours, 48 minutes, and 25 seconds….is what’s going through my mind.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
[...] Bad Astronomer discusses a Wall Street Journal article where McCain has promised $2 Billion to support NASA. [...]
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“Yu Mi Says:
Governor Palin’s bio says her father was a science teacher and she her degree is a Bachelor of Science so she probably knows more about science than Biden who has a Bachelor of Arts and a law degree.”
In most universities I have ever dealt with, the difference between a BA and a BS is the BA has some foreign language requirement.
It is most likely that if Palin has a BS degree all it means is she could not hack Spanish or French 101.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
“And I’m not thrilled with a swipe McCain took at Senator Obama”
awww, how cutes!
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
From Palin’s ofiicial website:
http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html
“Sarah Heath Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987.”
So she does not have a REAL science degree…
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 am
“Cooperating with them, cooperating with the other space-faring nations, means we all win.”
Cooperation has gotten us what? The ISS? If we’d not “cooperated” with Russia, we’d probably have a useful space station by now.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:19 am
“Dave Hall Says:
In most universities I have ever dealt with, the difference between a BA and a BS is the BA has some foreign language requirement.
It is most likely that if Palin has a BS degree all it means is she could not hack Spanish or French 101.”
I don’t know what universities you’ve dealt with, but where I got my BS (in math), there WAS a language requirement — 2 years. In any case, Communications-Journalism is not science.
But growing up with a father who was a science teacher COULD be better than having a baccalaureate in real science, for purposes of a top national office-holder. I say “could” based on the possibility that her dad was dedicated and passionate in his profession. In that case, she would have been instilled with the wonder and marvels of science, which would make her tend to advocate for science support, while not being able to solve (or even write–or even understand) Einstein’s field equations, which is totally irrelevant to her tendency toward or away from science advocacy, anyway.
“Chip Says:
She went to the University of Idaho and completed a “Bachelor of Science” degree in “Communications-Journalism”, not science. What little science she has commented on is gleamed from her father and tied in with her rightwing pseudo-religious-politico-expediency. i.e. Her comment to “teach both” (science and creationism) in classrooms is merely a pseudo-science creationist wedge for undermining actual science. Free, inquiring minds are a danger to future servants and recruits. The far-right hates critical thinkers.”
Yes, commonly the call to “teach both” is a pseudo-science wedge. But I have heard her say, when asked about the teaching of creationism or ID, that she would definitely NOT support teaching it in the SCIENCE classroom. I’ll wager that hasn’t been covered by the “major” news media. Nor, I suspect, has the fact, regarding the Keating 5, that Robert S. Bennett, Democrat, and lawyer for the congressional committee that investigated that case, has publicly exonerated Cactus John of any wrongdoing in that case, saying that he should never have even been named in the investigation; that they just wanted SOMEBODY without a “D” after their name, so it wouldn’t look partisan.
Finally, I find this recurrent myth that “the far-right hates critical thinkers” rather amusing as well as annoying. It is precisely the far-left (and not the left generally) that cannot tolerate critical thinking. There are countless cases of “right-wing” critical thinkers being shouted down by the radical left at universities, precisely where intellectual tolerance is supposed to be practiced. I am personally fortunate to know a number of people with leftward leanings (and several with rightward leanings), none of whom are so intolerant. Everyone on this blog also seems to be counted among these. This is one of the things that makes America great (just ask anyone who was lucky enough to escape a place where this tolerance is not practiced, why they came here, of all places). Let’s never lose that.
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 am
@Fred
Can you provide a link to this? In one of the other threads, there was a big back-and-forth discussion with no resolution. Lots of quotes thrown about, but never one where she clearly states that creationism/ID should not be taught in science class. The closest I’m aware of is that she would not push for it or make it part of the curriculum, stating that that should b left to local school boards.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 am
OH MAN!!!
BA, did you put your Obama bumper sticker on your windscreen by accident? It appears to be obstructing your view. You started out TRYING to give credit where credit is due, but you just couldn’t do it could ya?
Competition 100% wrong… WHAT??
Not thrilled with McCain swipe at Obama… that one is just too funny.
I’m so sick to death of what this never-ending election is doing to my role models!! It’s incredibly disheartening. Think I’ll work offline for the next couple of weeks.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
If you believe a person who wants money to create more social programs is actually going to fund science, then you’re not thinking. Why send extra money to NASA or give government grants to science activities when the money can be better spent on health care, homes for the poor, minority education, welfare etc.
The only time a socialist society puts money into science, is if they plan on building the military. Obviously, this isn’t Mr. Obama’s plan. It is gut check time.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Any true liberal believes competition is bad. This falls in line with distributing wealth, not rewarding hard work, helping those who won’t help themselves (but are able to), no tests in schools, no grades in schools, no judging what-so-ever.
Yet… don’t infringe on their copyrights or they will take you to court!! Someone explain this hypocrisy.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:33 am
@ Aodhhan:
“The only time a socialist society puts money into science, is if they plan on building the military”
Gee, I guess all those fabulous European Space Agency missions were actually secret military projects. I’m amazed they had the funds, what with their socialized medicine and all. Damn pinkos.
“Any true liberal believes competition is bad.”
Right off the Limbaugh show, eh? How original.
Go away troll. You’re boring.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
@ Aodhhan
We in Oz have the CSIRO (Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation). Not bad from a country that has socialised medicine and social programs. Of course we still have private medical insurance and private hospitals to go along with the socialist public health system. They actually work together. Private patient in a public hospital for example. I don’t know why the whole system has completely collapsed in the last 100 years since it isn’t possible to have successful partially socialised state…
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Wow, some bizarre comments here.
Obama did not “launch” his career in Ayers living room just because it was aa gathering of supporters. If you read his Audacity of Hope book he supports healthy capitalism and free market as well as a sympathetic view toward Wall Street, etc. also supported by his actions.
Rev Wright is not a racist. If you watch lots of his videos of sermons, he obviously does good things and is supported by a number of other churches. To say Obama was brainwashed by him in some way is not supported by his actions in the Senate. But then this also calls for the judgment of anybody who sits in an expecially wacky church for years, such as Palin or the hundreds of thousands of people belonging to fundamentalist megachurches.
Foster in Chicago (22 yr FermiLab) took Obama on a tour there and then Fermilab got funds. I see Obama as a persuadable person. None of these candidates know science in any depth.
The media did cover Palin’s creatibnism issue and it’s also on factcheck.org. The Alaskan paper noted that she first suported teaching an alternative view in science class, then she came back a couple of days later and changed her stance. The same thing was done with abstinence education. She supported it, then changed her tune. Little conviction with her.
A BS at the University I attended requires a foreign language course. That’s standard and was standard in the late 80s at most state universities.
Her friend said they both went to Hilo, Hawaii for a semester. They didn’t realize it rained so much there. (How you go there without checking the climate is rather dumb.)
They then went to Honolulu and did a semester there. Then went to Idaho. Then she went back to a school in Alaska, then Idaho finally. They took typical university requirements – a science class, history, etc.
She just said to People that she considers herself “intellectual” and reads all sorts of books but offered none. In a Charlie Rose interview last year, I think, she said she likes C.S. Lewis and some doctor/runner author. Her daughter’s high school career (the pregant one is sketchy). The father just dropped out of high school. The son in Iraq had to go there. Her father is a science teacher and a kind of naturalist who collected and studied dead animals. His house looks like a Peaboy Museum diorama.
Any true liberal believes competition is bad? You are a dolt. Liberalism is not socialism. Do some reading on classical liberalism and progressivism in US history. Liberal has been used as an epithet to encompass all sorts of BS that you are dishonestly perpetuating. I’m proud to be a liberal and I don’t have a problem with competition – I think it can be a healthy motivator.
I don’t think it’s all bad to try to convince those who see no reason to support NASA to use the “China is beating us” rhetoric because regrettably they don’t think science, research and exploration are good enough reasons alone. But I think it’s wrong not to emphasize the science aspect and what the future of the human race may entail. It’s a longggg term view.
I’ve been watching a lot of early 50s sci-fi. “Destination Moon” kind of covers how they sold a mission to businessmen. Worth checking out. Pretty funny too.
Who’s going to run future missions? Math and science students. At least Obama has repeatedly stressed that in primary education.
(-:
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Argh, sorry for all the typos!
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
@Melusine–
I don’t know–how exactly do you define “racist?”
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
85 comments down so this has most likely already been pointed out, but unfortunately I don’t have time to read all the comments.
McCain promised an across-the-board spending freeze. Is he chucking this out the window already?
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
John, John, John… please stop! You lost me at “$3 million for an overhead projector.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
@Aodhhan
Any true liberal believes competition is bad.
Someday, I hope to meet a true liberal. But since your turning this into a competition to see who can make up the most obviously stupid thing you can say about the opposition, I’m game.
Here’s my entry.
“Any true conservative can’t read.”
Your turn.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
David D.
A racist is someone who thinks their race is superior to other races because of particular traits. It is thinking that another race is ‘less than’ one’s race. Those who claim blacks (or any other race) is genetically inferior in regards to intelligence, for example, is racist. Those who think that white people are better, are racist.
The term racist is thrown around so much when the word prejudice is more applicable (or bigotry and favoritism). The majority of blacks do not think they are superior to white people; they are reacting to centuries of often being treated as sub-humans. Blacks who are voting for Obama just because he is black, is not racism. It is favoritism given the history of the US.
If a person were to say “Blacks are lazy” that is not necessarily racism, but it is prejudice because it is a view not supported by ample evidence and is based on subjective observation. If a parent says, “My child is very beautiful, but then I’m prejudiced”…you see how that goes?
The degredation and misuse of ‘racism’ annoys me because racism is a deep-seated perpetuation of ‘otherness.” Prejudice can be more easily corrected because it is preconcieved notions. (Well, sometimes people can’t even except counter-examples and so they very well may racist.) I’ve read lots of interviews of Rev Wright and he’s not racist. One has to look at the big picture from the time he gave up his college defferment in the 60s to the events, to racism today, to a distrust of government. I’m not saying he hasn’t said kooky things (the AIDS bit was kooky), but black solidarity or community is not black separatism or such. White people attended his church (though he is no longer on the pulpit) and still do. Ayer’s actions too, was very much a sign o’ the times, though I’m not condoning planting bombs.
Back to McCain, I posted a link that showed his voting record on NASA funding was sketchy. If he supports a spending freeze, then who knows what bills he would veto that support science research. The only thing I know he’ll do for sure is support tax cuts for the wealthy and it’s bunk that tax-cuts produce jobs given Bush’s administration. They may bolster growth of the economy, but that’s not jobs.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Melusine,
Interesting point of view, now explain Biden’s Law school problems.
October 23rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
@Melusine–
Your first paragraph is worded very carefully and is very telling, to say the least. It’s almost as if you don’t believe blacks can be racist (read your words). Some people actually believe that; is that you’re point of view?
I find it disturbing to see how people have gone out of their way to explain away or somehow justify Wright’s views (and in your case, now Ayers). As I said before, if this was McCain closely associated with a racist–oops, I’m sorry, prejudiced white preacher, do you really think there would be the same kind of conversation going on?
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I love how people read into things, instead of actually reading.
Who said being a liberal and socialism go hand in hand? You can be a conservative socialist.
Okay, what outstanding ESA projects… which were TOTALLY FUNDED BY THE ESA? There aren’t any btw. Some small ones, but large ones have other countries helping with the bill. Next you’ll be telling me the LHC received no funding from the USA or Japan, right?
Jose… you win. You are the stupidest. Congrats!!
October 23rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
“Okay, what outstanding ESA projects… which were TOTALLY FUNDED BY THE ESA? There aren’t any btw. Some small ones, but large ones have other countries helping with the bill. Next you’ll be telling me the LHC received no funding from the USA or Japan, right?”
No, next I’ll be telling you you’re changing your story once provide evidence to the contrary. Your original quote:
“The only time a socialist society puts money into science, is if they plan on building the military. ”
“Putting money into” something is not the same as “TOTALLY FUNDING” it. Now, what else are you going to change?
No, wait. Don’t answer that. Just go away, troll.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
@Aodhhan
Jose… you win. You are the stupidest. Congrats!!.
Oh snap! Thanks! Although, it wasn’t a contest to see who was the stupidest. It was a contest to see who could make up the stupidest thing. But I will take your response as a concession that you do in fact make up silly things in an attempt to win and argument. Darn. That also shows you can’t read all that well, so maybe what I said wasn’t so stupid after all. So congratulations! You’re back in the lead!
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 pm
@David D.
Your first paragraph is worded very carefully and is very telling, to say the least. It’s almost as if you don’t believe blacks can be racist (read your words). Some people actually believe that; is that you’re point of view?
Oh come on. I’m not sure I agree with everything Melusine said, but it’s pretty clear she believes blacks can be racist. All they would have to do is think something like “I’m better than a white person because I’m black”.
October 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
@Jose–
“it’s pretty clear she believes blacks can be racist”
No, really it’s not. Read carefully again that first paragraph. In describing racists, she only gives two examples, neither of which involve blacks being racist. In fact, no where in her post does she mention the possibility of black racism. She even goes so far as to dismiss Wright’s “prejudice” by saying we have to look at the “big picture.”
I will admit I haven’t read as many interviews with Wright as she has, but from what I have read and what I have seen, Wright is more than just “kooky” (like he’s some cute, nutty guy). He’s a rather angry, vile person at the very least. The fact that in some interviews he may come across as warm and caring does not detract from the very disturbing thing that he preached loud and clear. And when given a chance to explain his views (at that Press Club reception), he basically magnified them; this was what finally prompted Obama to completely if belatedly distance himself from him.
Racism is racism, and it is a HUMAN trait that all humans share, no matter what skin color they may have.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
@David D.
No, really it’s not. Read carefully again that first paragraph.
Yes it is. Read the first two sentences
The definition is right there. The examples used don’t matter. Melusine gave a definition of race, and you threw a straw man at it.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
@jose–
I am not arguing with Melusine’s definition. I am simply making an observation about what I perceive to be her views on the subject of racism, based on things that she said in that comment. My opinion has nothing to do with a straw man argument.
There are people who firmly believe that only white people are capable of racism. Perhaps Melusine is one of them–I do not know, and actually, neither do you.
Perhaps you should not try and speak for Melusine.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
David D,
First of all, I use dictionaries. I didn’t say that blacks can’t be racist, but that would be rare in the US given the population of blacks. You have no evidence that Wright is racist and thinks blacks are superior to whites – he rails against the oppression and discrimination of black people. In that overplayed sermon, he railed about US govt actions as well which weren’t particularly new to hear, especially as he was quoting someone else along with his own ranting. I do think he has an ego, and he was stupid and thoughtless to rant again after all that press, but I do know how he thinks on some matters that I could agree with. I’m not sure what you considered “vile” exactly, but the main point is that I don’t see ANY degree of those kind of moments of Wright’s rubbing off on Obama’s words and actions. I DO see that it being a 5,000 member church in Chicago has a lot to do with membership. Good gospel music too.
Yu Mi, what about Biden’s law school problems? He plagiarized, received an F, admitted it, so what is there to say except that it was wrong to do? His constituents keep electing him despite. You don’t really want to get into tit-for-tat issues with McCain or Palin, do you? Because then you’re talking about stuff that had effects on other people.
BTW, rocket scientist for Obama! Put the YouTube url before this: /user/AVoteForScience
Actually, it’s lots of scientists. (I know, David D, you’ll have to convince all these scientists to fret over Rev Wright and Bill Ayers too. Clearly they must be out of their minds and lacking character to not recognize how Obama has been brainwashed. They must all be Marxists, ya know? They’re out to socialize the universe and Mars is just the beginning.)
(:
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@David D.
I’m not going to go through all the comments, but I’m guessing that you haven’t used any examples of white people, Chinese people, or Māori being racist. Do you think it would be fair for me to make the suggestion that you might believe white people, Chinese, and Māori can’t be racist, even though you’ve clearly said otherwise?
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
@Melusine–
You know, I use dictionaries too. And when I Google “definition of racism,” the first two definitions mention “prejudice or descrimination” based on race; this is a little different than the distinction you drew between racism and prejudice.
You have also chosen to define racism as believing that one race is superior to another. I believe that one can be racist in simply disliking or hating someone else based on their racial characteristics, without necessarily having to feel superior. I believe that it is probably racist to make any kind of judgement about a person that is based solely on their skin color; this does not necessarily involve feeling superior.
At the very least, most people would agree that Wright is anti-white. THere are a lot of people, black and white, who consider him racist. As far as vile, well, United States of KKK and God Damn America certainly pass my vile test.
I don’t think I have said that Obama believes what Wright believes or has the same feelings about whites that Wright does; nor do I think that he agrees with the views or tactics of Ayers. The fact that he so closely associated himself with so controversial a person (wright) for so long makes me and a lot of other people (including lots of scientists
) question his judgement.
Again, if this was McCain, intimately involved for over 20 years with a controversial white pastor widely regarded as racist and that McCain had referred to as his spiritual mentor, would this conversation be the same?
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
@Jose–
I never defined racism, as I asked M. to do so when she stated that Wright was not a racist. I found it interesting the way she gave examples of racism, that’s all. She has clarified her point to me.
I probably would have defined racism a little differently and most likely would have given different examples.
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
David, last time…”You have also chosen to define racism as believing that one race is superior to another. I believe that one can be racist in simply disliking or hating someone else based on their racial characteristics, without necessarily having to feel superior.”
I can quote you my unabridged dictionary if you like, but there is a difference. If you go back to my post I said two things: feeling superior and feeling that a person is an “other.” If someone hates someone because of the color of their skin, that’s treating that person as “other” and presumably the person thinks white skin is better (superior) to black skin. If it was just a matter of ‘I prefer the color red over blue’ there wouldn’t be hating, right? I mean, why would someone hate somebody for their racial characteristics? Are you trying to tell me that someone who does hates someone for having Asian features or an accent isn’t because they think they, their features or whatever are not better?
OK, so you question Obama’s judgment despite that you have little knowledge of Wright and you’re not willing to give him a bit of a handicap for the whole nature of the church. Also, since Obama did attend the church for so long, surely his judgment in attending has manifested itself in what ways since he’s been a State senator and US Senator?
But here’s my concern: the James Dobsons, Pat Robertson, dead Jerry Falwells, Rod Parlseys, John Hagees, Rev. M0ons, et al. have tons of money and have influenced politics, funded numerous groups around the US, including lowly YouTubers who create smear videos and influence millions of people on TV, through universites, etc. They help fund groups like the Discovery Institute which then infiltrates (their goal) school boards, wasting peoples time and turning board meetings into miniature Scopes trials. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers are little fish in a big pond of moneyed influence in politics. There’s no comparison.
Obama and Biden are the only candidates to stress separation of church and state, whereas with the Republicans, mentioning that phrase is like a death knell to their base. For over 20 years millions of people have watched nutso Pat Robertson on CBN TV (like sitting in a church sermon) and there were about 10 channels on my past cable devoted to all sorts of wackiness of a religious nature. And they’re pandered to. They visit the White House. Ted Haggard, meth-prostitute preacher, met with Bush on a number of occasions along with others.
So tell us why we should be worried about Obama’s judgment? I’m just wondering how with all the advisers, military people, et al. he’s surrounded himself with how this Rev Wright business translates into something to be concerned about that one should prefer McCain instead. I have some serious judgment issues with McCain, so…
The last word is yours. (:
October 24th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Okay, last word–
I think it is possible to dislike someone for the color of their WHITE skin (once again, you have chosen to only exemplify white racism, which I find interesting), without feeling superior, perhaps because of past unpleasant experiences, or maybe for some completely illogical reason which you and I cannot fathom. So yes–I am telling you that you can hate or fear someone without feeling superior. Your definition works for you, but it is only YOUR definition. As I have pointed out, there are other definitions which are just as valid.
As far as Wright and his church (of which I have a fair amount of knowledge actually), I understand that his church has many other messages, including positive, inclusive ones. But Wright is NOT his church.
I won’t argue with you about the influence of other churches in past elections, often helmed by equally controversial pastors, some of whom have had to publicly apologize for their verbal missteps. Those churches were often vigorously criticized by the MSM, but of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot . . .
And I don’t think Wright is such a little fish in this election.
This is not the only issue that I have with Obama. Nor is it the biggest issue for me. THere are a number of issues that bother me about his candidacy, but race is not one of them. I have issues with McCain, too, although politically I feel less uncomfortable with him. I wish we had better choices, but such is the nature of our system.