Blogs / Bad Astronomy

Note: I originally posted this entry on October 8, but quite a few people are saying that it won’t load for them; they get errors or blank pages. The Hive Overmind has been notified, but in the meantime here is the post again. I hope you can see it! But if you’re reading this note, you can see it, and if you can’t read this note, then why am I sitting here talking to myself?

So a little while back, John McCain made an ill-advised crack about planetaria (that’s the plural of planetarium), calling them "foolishness". It was ill advised because it raised the hackles of lots of science-loving folks, including those who want to — gasp, horror! — educate kids about astronomy and science.

At the time I suspected it was just a wedge in which to attack Barack Obama, but his use of the word foolishness really caught my attention. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but does he really dislike such things?

Well, last night removed any doubt, when McCain — twice — used Obama’s requested earmark of three million dollars for Adler planetarium as a bludgeon, trying to pin Obama as another pork-barrel politician. He disdainfully said the money was for an "overhead projector". Those are his exact words. Here’s what he said:

While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he [Senator Obama, or "that one"] voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

Well, shock of shocks — it turns out McCain’s characterization of this was all wrong. In fact, I would call it a lie. He knows it wasn’t for an overhead projector, a piece of classroom equipment that costs a couple of hundred dollars. That money was for Adler’s Zeiss Mark VI star projector: a venerable piece of precision fabricated equipment that projects the stars, constellations, and other objects inside the planetarium dome. Adler’s Zeiss is 40 years old, and desperately needs replacing. These machines are pricey, and replacing them difficult.

Adler needed money to do this. They asked local politicians, and eventually were able to get a request in a budget submitted by Obama. However, Obama never even voted on that budget, and Adler never got that money — thus making, again, McCain a liar.

Needless to say, Adler wasn’t thrilled with this characterization of their beloved Zeiss. They issued a statement to that effect. You can also get opinions all over the place: Universe Today, SpaceWriter, Davin Flateau, Discovery Space, Wonkette, the Chicago Tribune, even NPR.

I have posted about this before (just last night, in fact). The comments on my statements have been all over the place, from support to some fairly ridiculous complaints. My favorites have involved something along the line of, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has to send money to planetaria?"

Good question. But where does it say the government will repair roads, provide clean water, create public schools, fund the space program?

Look: there are some things the government does for the greater good. This is where libertarians and I part company. Government isn’t always bad. In many cases, it takes the money it gets in taxes and does fantastic things with it, like sending probes to Mercury and funding autism research. It makes the roads drivable, and makes sure companies don’t pollute our air (well, it used to do that). You can complain all you want that earmarks get abused — and they certainly do — but they also get used to fund projects that are starved for cash, and that richly deserve to have life breathed into them.

I disagree with McCain here as well. He wants no earmarks at all. I think that’s ridiculous. It would be far better to have regulation of them, instead of the laissez-faire attitude the government has now. Or, if not overt regulation, some sort of throttle on them, instead of them being free passes to bridges to nowhere.

And finally, I want to reiterate what I said in my first post on this topic: I love planetaria. Love love love. They educate kids. That is among the finest and most honorable goals anyone can have. People who work at planetaria across the country and the world do it because they love it. They don’t get rich doing it, they don’t get fame doing it, they hardly even get accolades doing it. But we owe so much to them! Kids learn in planetaria– and not just about the stars over their heads on a given night; planetaria are evolving into the digital age, bringing incredible programs to the public (I know what I’m talking about here). And it’s not even just astronomy. The projectors can give all kinds of lessons: biology, history, local lore… anything you can create digitally can be projected in a planetarium, and kids can learn.

For McCain to use this as a political zinger is insulting, and for him to call it foolishness is beyond the pale. The honorable thing for him to do now is to admit he was wrong, admit he mischaracterized both the planetarium and Obama’s stance, and then issue a public apology to planetarians and science-lovers across the country.

The next debate is in one week. I bet a lot more pro-science folks will be watching, too. Closely.

So a little while back, John McCain made an ill-advised crack about planetaria (that’s the plural of planetarium), calling them "foolishness". It was ill advised because it raised the hackles of lots of science-loving folks, including those who want to — gasp, horror! — educate kids about astronomy and science.

At the time I suspected it was just a wedge in which to attack Barack Obama, but his use of the word foolishness really caught my attention. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, but does he really dislike such things?

Well, last night removed any doubt, when McCain — twice — used Obama’s requested earmark of three million dollars for Adler planetarium as a bludgeon, trying to pin Obama as another pork-barrel politician. He disdainfully said the money was for an "overhead projector". Those are his exact words. Here’s what he said:

While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he [Senator Obama, or "that one"] voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

Well, shock of shocks — it turns out McCain’s characterization of this was all wrong. In fact, I would call it a lie. He knows it wasn’t for an overhead projector, a piece of classroom equipment that costs a couple of hundred dollars. That money was for Adler’s Zeiss Mark VI star projector: a venerable piece of precision fabricated equipment that projects the stars, constellations, and other objects inside the planetarium dome. Adler’s Zeiss is 40 years old, and desperately needs replacing. These machines are pricey, and replacing them difficult.

Adler needed money to do this. They asked local politicians, and eventually were able to get a request in a budget submitted by Obama. However, Obama never even voted on that budget, and Adler never got that money — thus making, again, McCain a liar.

Needless to say, Adler wasn’t thrilled with this characterization of their beloved Zeiss. They issued a statement to that effect. You can also get opinions all over the place: Universe Today, SpaceWriter, Davin Flateau, Discovery Space, Wonkette, the Chicago Tribune, even NPR.

I have posted about this before (just last night, in fact). The comments on my statements have been all over the place, from support to some fairly ridiculous complaints. My favorites have involved something along the line of, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has to send money to planetaria?"

Good question. But where does it say the government will repair roads, provide clean water, create public schools, fund the space program?

Look: there are some things the government does for the greater good. This is where libertarians and I part company. Government isn’t always bad. In many cases, it takes the money it gets in taxes and does fantastic things with it, like sending probes to Mercury and funding autism research. It makes the roads drivable, and makes sure companies don’t pollute our air (well, it used to do that). You can complain all you want that earmarks get abused — and they certainly do — but they also get used to fund projects that are starved for cash, and that richly deserve to have life breathed into them.

I disagree with McCain here as well. He wants no earmarks at all. I think that’s ridiculous. It would be far better to have regulation of them, instead of the laissez-faire attitude the government has now. Or, if not overt regulation, some sort of throttle on them, instead of them being free passes to bridges to nowhere.

And finally, I want to reiterate what I said in my first post on this topic: I love planetaria. Love love love. They educate kids. That is among the finest and most honorable goals anyone can have. People who work at planetaria across the country and the world do it because they love it. They don’t get rich doing it, they don’t get fame doing it, they hardly even get accolades doing it. But we owe so much to them! Kids learn in planetaria– and not just about the stars over their heads on a given night; planetaria are evolving into the digital age, bringing incredible programs to the public (I know what I’m talking about here). And it’s not even just astronomy. The projectors can give all kinds of lessons: biology, history, local lore… anything you can create digitally can be projected in a planetarium, and kids can learn.

For McCain to use this as a political zinger is insulting, and for him to call it foolishness is beyond the pale. The honorable thing for him to do now is to admit he was wrong, admit he mischaracterized both the planetarium and Obama’s stance, and then issue a public apology to planetarians and science-lovers across the country.

The next debate is in one week. I bet a lot more pro-science folks will be watching, too. Closely.

In a related note to my earlier post, I keep getting a MySpace friend request by someone who is shilling books about death and doom in 2012. I marked the request as spam, but this person has resent it twice. On the third try, he said (paraphrased) "I am a fan of your work and would like to be your friend here."

Are you kidding me?

Look, I’m a nice guy, and I like having friends. But let me be clear; people who write books only to scare people about nonsense doomsday predictions are among the lowest and worst forms of slime on this planet.^* Scaring people to make a buck is just evil, plain and simple. Prosecuting someone like this bonehead who is writing antiscientific garbage about 2012 would be very difficult — fraud is hard to prove — but it’s too good for them. I have no doubt he’ll find a ton of folks all too willing to feed from the slop he’s swilling, but I’m not quite so gullible. And I certainly won’t befriend him. I don’t know which possibility I find more offensive — the idea that he is such a chucklehead that he thinks I would actually agree to add him to my friends list, or that he thinks I’m such an idiot that I won’t check up on him before I click "accept", even when his MySpace avatar is the cover of one of his antiscience books proclaiming we’re all gonna die in 2012.

C’mon.

So let me say this here, as loudly, publicly, and clearly as I can: if you are an antiscientist, if you are a doomsday crier, if you abuse science and specifically astronomy to sell books, videos, pamphlets, websites, or get on the radio, TV, and podcasts, trying to scare people or funnel money into your scam, then I am your worst enemy. I will expose you for what you are. I will mercilessly and unrelentingly tear apart your arguments, shine the light of reality on the noisome offal you peddle, and do everything I can within reason to make sure that people understand just how ridiculous, offensive, and downright wrong your claims are. And that includes people who promote the Moon hoax, creationism, selling star names, astrology, Mayan prophecies, Sitchinism, Velikovskiism, the Electric Universe, structures on Mars, antivax propaganda, NASA conspiracies, supernatural apparitions, pareidolic visitations, UFOs, aliens peeking in windows, hot comets, and planetary alignment disasters… and especially if you’re a politician who promotes any of these things.

If you fall into this category, then you might want to keep an eye on your rear-view mirror. The face you’ll see in it is mine, as well as those of hundreds, thousands of others who will not rest as long as you try to tear down reality. We’ll be right there, fixing it back up.

OK, I’ve had enough.

I want my transfat back!

I was at Target recently picking up a few things, and saw that HoHos were on sale. Yes, the little chocolate-like log things; when I was a kid I loved them, and I still sometimes buy them so I can be a kid again for a little while (like I need an excuse). Plus, I’ve been a good boy: I finished my book, I’ve been working on the blog and the website, and doing other things that need to get done. I want to treat myself. So I buy a box.

In the car I opened the box, got out a HoHo, and took a big bite… and almost spat it back out. It was awful, like someone had injected it with pure suck. After a moment to overcome my shock, I reached for the box. With increasing dread, I looked over the ingredients, and there were the words I knew would be there:

"Trans fat 0g"

AIIIIIEEEEEEE!

What are companies thinking? Do they really honestly think that by removing all semblance of flavor and replacing it with — I’m guessing here — toe cheese, they’ll be able to keep customers, just because they took out the transfat?

Piece of free advice to Hostess from an ex-customer: put the transfat back. That’s what makes the HoHos taste good. That’s why people buy them.

Sure, transfats are bad for you. But you know what? I’m buying a HoHo. I know I’m getting something that is not healthy for me. The same thing happens when I grab a candy bar, or a bowl of ice cream, or a piece of fried chicken. I’m not eating these because they’ll give me six-pack abs, I’m eating them because they taste good.

I am really, really tired of people making my decisions for me. Kids are getting fat eating Twinkies and HoHos? OK then, parents, here’s more free advice from another parent: stop feeding them to your kids. The Little Astronomer gets lots of healthy food in her lunch every day, plus sometimes a snack, a goodie, a treat. Three cookies, or a pudding, or some other sweet. But that’s after the banana and the sandwich.

It’s not all that hard. Moderation, folks. It’s that simple.

Transfats are bad for you, but not if you take care. Eat good stuff, walk around a little bit, bike to the store sometimes instead of drive. That way, the occasional 4 or 5 grams of transfats won’t kill you.

And to any company that takes the transfat out of their food: you can bite me. Because I won’t be biting you.

Daylight savings time, blah blah blah.

Spring forward, fall back, blah blah blah.

OK, fine. Tonight at 2:00 a.m. you’re supposed to set your clocks forward an hour and pretend like 2:00:00 to 02:59:59 never existed. Or you can do like me, forget all about it, stumble around in the morning without looking at the clocks, turn on the TV and realize you missed something you wanted to see, then stomp around the house resetting the clocks, then swear like a sailor when you accidentally set one three minutes ahead of the correct time and then have to hold down the "time" and the "fast" button for another 30 seconds while they cycle through an entire day, then realize ten minutes later you set yours but not your wife’s, and then swear again.

I’ve always disliked and distrusted Daylight Saving Time. At least now, according to Astroprof, I have a legitimate reason.

Congress. Setting back clocks for decades now.

I’ve been pointing out for months now that President Bush and his Administration have been waging a planned, protracted, and devious attack on science in almost every field across the board. I’ve been taken to task by some commenters on this, saying I am being unfair (implying I simply hate Bush and will disagree with everything he does — never mind that the more likely scenario for most folks is the other way around).

For those of you who think I am being unfair, U.S. Representative Henry Waxman would like a word with you.

Waxman is the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. They have been studying Bush and his stance on global warming, and have just released their findings. Surprise! Bush is waging a planned, protracted, and devious attack on science. Check it (emphasis mine):

For the past 16 months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been investigating allegations of political interference with government climate change science under the Bush Administration. During the course of this investigation, the Committee obtained over 27,000 pages of documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Commerce Department, held two investigative hearings, and deposed or interviewed key officials. Much of the information made available to the Committee has never been publicly disclosed.

This report presents the findings of the Committee’s investigation. The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

Yeah, shocker. And if only this were the only front on which Bush and crew were engaging in criminal stupidity. There is also health, sex education, religious freedom, the CDC, the FDA, the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Administration, and and and.

Oh yeah, and NASA, too.

I wonder if anyone (besides Keith Olbermann) in the mainstream media will pick up on this?

Read Waxman’s report. It’s not terribly long, but it’s certainly damning.

Hat tip to C&L.

One thing most creationist promoters really abhor is publicity. Not all of them hate it, of course; the Discovery Institute craves it like an addict, but the irony is that when they get it, their lies, machinations, and political sleaziness get exposed.

Other creationist organizations want to avoid publicity for that very reason. So the Texans involved with forcing Chris Comer out of her job are probably taking blood pressure medicine at this point. Not only has their utter contempt for reality and decency been exposed, but the exposure is gaining momentum.

The group Texas Citizens for Science (go team!) has posted a very public evisceration of the Texas Education Agency. This essay really pounds home just how evil these people are:

The real reason she was forced to resign is because the top TEA administrators and some SBOE members wanted her out of the picture before the state science standards–the science TEKS–were reviewed, revised, and rewritten next year. Plans are underway by some SBOE members and TEA administrators to diminish the requirement to teach about evolutionary biology in the Biology TEKS and to require instead that biology instructors “Teach the Controversy” about the “weaknesses” of evolution, that is, teach the Creationist-inspired and -created bogus controversy about evolution that doesn’t exist within legitimate science. There are no scientific weaknesses with biological evolution as the natural process is understood by scientists. At the level at which it is taught in high school, evolutionary biology has no weaknesses, gaps, or problems. Therefore, it is duplicitous to pretend such “weaknesses” and “controversy” exist.

This is not an opinion being expressed here. It’s a fact. The Texas State Board of Education is trying to change the way they review and edit the science standards in the state; the basic ideas students get taught in class. Get this: they want to have a single person (called without any conscious irony on their part a facilitator) who will have the final say on how the standards get written. Sure, there will be a panel of experts and all that, but if the panel says evolution needs to be a standard, and the facilitator disagrees, then evolution won’t be a standard. It’s that simple.

And what are the odds the facilitator will be someone who can be trusted on these point? I’d say a big fat zero.

This violates the very nature of education on nearly all levels. Without any expert input whatsoever, a single person (chosen by a Board of Education with decidedly creationist leanings) gets to decide not only what is science and what isn’t, but also decide this for all the public school students in the state.

How doomed can one state be? The answer is none. None more doomed. Unless people rise up and do something about this. If you are an educator, scientist, parent, or student in the state of Texas, and you’re as angry as I am, contact the Texas Citizens for Science and do something. Make your voice heard!

Tip o’ the ten gallon hat to PZ.