Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?

Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks!  Portland, Oregon.  11:23 AM

I was just going to throw this link up onto Snip.it & Pinterest, but I really felt some words were necessary here.

First of all, I have known some very intelligent people who have conservative political views.  Not only are they smart, but their political views are smart as well.  Their arguments are usually well developed, informed, and are very intelligent, based on legitimate facts, figures and historical interpretations.

Quite often I disagree with them, but this is because we subscribe to some different historical and philosophical interpretations.  However, when we debate, I hope both of us walk away better informed than when we started. 

These debates usually change no minds, but they can actually make each of our arguments stronger, because through a well-informed conversation on an issue, we both learn some new facts and figures, holes are punched in our weaker arguments, and we have to find support for fuzzy truths we may have thrown out in haste or drop those imperfect arguments from our repertoire.  In the end, each side can make a better informed decision on the point being discussed and, hopefully, takes away stronger arguments in defense of our views.

But what about right and wrong?  What about winning?  Well, in intelligent debates, we are usually arguing sane problems and issues that have multiple, legitimate, intelligent solutions.  There usually is not a right answer or a wrong answer.  Or they are very complex problems that require the best ideas from both the right and the left to be adequately resolved.

Of course, I am not talking about racism, prejudice, discrimination, or science.  I usually find that intelligent conservatives and I pretty much share the same views here.  Because we are not stupid or ignorant.

Which brings us to this…

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information | | AlterNet:

…Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.


It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.


But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust.  Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Pausing for a second…  I do not equate conservative ideology with intolerance, necessarily.  Social conservatism, perhaps, but not conservatism in general. 

It seems as if a narrow path is being walked here, almost but not quite defining conservatism as racist and intolerant.  That may be problematic.  Further, if these sorts are drawn to the conservative ideology, does that mean conservative ideology is intolerant?  Or does it become intolerant because of the influx of these intolerant people with low IQs?  In the end, does it matter even matter where the causes and effects lay?  Or has it become a self-perpetuating cycle with the chickens shitting all over the eggs they are laying, beyond any identification of cause and effect?

Blah.  From here the article climbs up onto more solid ground…  The problem lies not with a lack of intelligent conservatives, but with the way the intelligent conservatives have been pandering to their side’s “basest, stupidest impulses.” 

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.

But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.

…"the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

This is troubling in so many ways.  But this is why so many poor Americans are fervent Republicans while many of the policies and practices of the GOP act against their own best interests at worst, or have little to do with any issues really effecting the poor at best.

Even more troubling:

In the UK, “the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.”

And even worse, and heading towards my real point here:

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Many of the policies that benefit corporations are acutely harmful to the poor.  Tax policy?  Maybe, maybe not, but the minimum wage?  Expensive workplace safety regulations?  Even more costly environmental protection regulations? 

The people arguing for deregulation will never live where the water supply has been poisoned by carcinogens, so why should they worry?  Guess who gets to live there?  The people voting for the conservative candidates who argue that such regulations kill jobs. 

The real issue is not the IQ of the voters.  I know for a fact that many of the loudest voices on the left should be locked in small rooms and only allowed to talk to rocks.  Both sides have these people. 

But what is so disturbing to me is how so many on the right so callously prey upon the ignorance of many in their voting base. 

Perhaps this is my own prejudice, but what I see so often is the left saying, vote for us and we’ll keep the plant next door to your house from killing you while the right says, vote for us, and we’ll keep the left from putting job killing regulations on the plant next door to you and who really believes in all that science stuff, anyway, that says arsenic is bad for you?  Jobs and superbabies!  You can have it all! 

I used the photo of the class warfare sign at the top of this post because I feel that this really is class warfare.  It is an act of class warfare for the right to use these tactics on their own supporters. 

The right says we cannot have a discussion about income inequality, because that is class warfare and an attack on the capitalist principles of the American Dream.  Those on the right who would actually benefit from having this discussion, those who desperately feel the worsening ache of the dying American Dream every day, turn angry, fearful eyes towards those on the left who are fighting for them, away from those on the right who are actually stealing access to the American Dream from the vast majority of the country’s citizens in the first place.

And that, beyond being reprehensible, is just plain frightening.

Related Posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Newt, NASA, & the Moon (Updated January 30, 2012)

On Newt Gingrich on the Moon | Vintage Space:

Last week, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich made a bold claim: “By the end of my second term [2020], we will have the first permanent base on the Moon and it will be American.” On the surface, it’s an intriguing and even exciting prospect to space enthusiasts. A base on the Moon would extend human presence in the Solar System and act as a stepping stone on the way to Mars. Or, it could bankrupt NASA and prove to be little more than an ill-thought out, dead-end program. (Gingrich proposed a lunar base by 2020 in Florida on January 25, 2012.)

Gingrich promises moon base that could become 51st state | The Raw Story:

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” the candidate insisted. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that included science, tourism and manufacturing.”

“I accept the charge that I am an American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future!” he exclaimed. “I want you to help me both in Florida and across the country so that you can someday say you were here the day it was announce that of course we’d have commercial space and near space. Of course we’d have a man colony on the moon that flew an American flag.”

Do we need a manned space program?  Yes we do. 

Does NASA need to get out of low Earth orbit?  Yes.

Will the private sector get us there?  Probably not.

Is Newt the leader we’ve been waiting for to get us re-focused on space?  Highly unlikely.

Is Newt the second coming of JFK?  Only in his own mind.

UPDATE: January 30, 2012

Phil Plait always has some good thoughts on these subjects.

The Newt-onian Mechanics of Building a Permanent Moon Base | The Crux | Discover Magazine:

I’m also not comfortable with raising the specter of another space race. Any attempts to get political motivation for exploring or exploiting space will inevitably bring to mind the idea of the Chinese. Have no doubts: the Chinese space program efforts are solid, and accelerating. When they say they want to have a moonbase by the 2020s, this is not bluster. They may very well be able to do it. But getting into a second space race with China would be suicide for our space program. Obviously, they have far more money than we do for such an endeavor. But more than that; what is the goal of a race?

Answer: to win. And what happens after you win? Look to Apollo for that. The goal of the first space race in the 1950s and 60s was to beat the Soviets. We did: America got to the Moon first. But after that, enthusiasm for Apollo died rapidly, and Apollos 18–20 were canceled about a year after Armstrong first stepped foot on the Moon. After all, once you’ve won, why keep running?

The point is, if we want to have a sustainable, permanent base on the Moon, then it has to live or die on its merits. As soon as we make it an “us versus them” scenario, the chances of long-term thinking drop precipitously.

Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.

NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.

A lot of the media have made fun of Gingrich for this plan. The irony is they’re doing it for the wrong reason. A Moon base is being likened to science fiction, just some silly fluff. But that’s grossly unfair.

Space exploration is an issue that’s important. It’s vital to our nation for a host of reasons, but it is also costly in every sense of the word. If we go, we should go for the right reasons, and we should do it the right way. If we go, we must go to stay. The budget for this can’t be set up on political election cycles, it must be based on the real constraints of engineering and technology, and far more importantly it must be based on a commitment to the future. If we do this, we must invest in the long haul.

Gingrich’s plan does not encompass that idea. Ineptly aimed media ridicule aside, what’s clear is that Gingrich’s speech was long on rhetoric but short on actual substance…

The Gingrich Who Stole The News Cycle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine:

In the post for The Crux I was blunt, but held back my tongue a bit because that isn’t necessarily the venue for me to do otherwise. But here, on my blog, I’ll say this: Gingrich’s words were both transparent and hollow. I knew right away what he was claiming was simply not possible, either financially, technologically, or politically. Take your pick. And it was also clear to me that no matter how you slice it, NASA would get screwed royally if his Moon base plan were implemented, since it would mean billions of dollars moved away from NASA projects to finance this. I started digging deeper to see if my first reaction was wrong, and all I found showed I was righter than I first thought. Every way you try to do it, his plan would destroy NASA. And I’m not exaggerating; the amount of money we’re talking about taking away from NASA projects to fund a base his way would leave everything else in NASA facing cancellation. It’s really that simple.

Also see…

Amen! "I bet we could go explore the galaxy if..."
Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing : Discovery News
Story Musgrave kicks ass: Thoughts on NASA's lack of vision
One small step for China, one impossible step for America: Falling behind in space
Final shuttle flight...
NASA's failure to launch: Being right in so many wrong ways...
50 years after the first manned spaceflight... Is human space exploration to become a footnote in history?

More Related Posts

Thursday, January 05, 2012

2012 Apocalypse Grab Bag

Note: Cross posted from Rubble.

Permalink

From 2011-11 (Nov)

 2012 Apocalypse FAQ: Why the World Won't End | 2012 Doomsday Theories & End of the World | Dec. 21, 2012 | Space.com:

Just as the calendar you have on your kitchen wall does not cease to exist after December 31, the Mayan calendar does not cease to exist on December 21, 2012. This date is the end of the Mayan long-count period but then — just as your calendar begins again on January 1 — another long-count period begins for the Mayan calendar.

10 Failed Doomsday Predictions | End of the World & Apocalypse | LiveScience:

Most prophets of doom come from a religious perspective, though the secular crowd has caused its share of scares as well. One thing the doomsday scenarios tend to share in common: They don't come to pass.

Here are 10 that didn't pan out, so far:

End of the World? Top Doomsday Fears | May 21 Doomsday, 2012 Doomsday | Apocalypse Scenarios | LiveScience:

With more and more technologies able to wreak mass destruction, a greater knowledge of what cosmic threats our planet faces, and more forms of media capable of trumpeting Armageddon, it seems as if there is more hype than ever about one supposedly impending apocalypse or another in 2012, despite all the failed doomsday predictions over the years.

Here are 10 apocalyptic scenarios that have raised fears about the end of civilization, in alphabetical order.

The Draw of Doomsday: Why People Look Forward to the End | Apocalypse & Armageddon | May 21 Judgment Day & 2012 Doomsday Hype | LiveScience:

According to DiTommaso, the apocalyptic worldview isn't uncommon. At the extreme end are people like Camping or Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese doomsday cult that carried out sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway in 1995. But doomsday appeals to the secular and well-adjusted as well, through books such as Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" (Knopf, 2006) and movies like "The Terminator" (1984). Meanwhile, economic hard times and crises like Japan's earthquake and tsunami have spiked interested in survivalism and "prepping," or stashing food and supplies in preparation for a coming collapse.


Apocalpytic beliefs have been on rise for the past 40 to 50 years, said DiTommaso, who has been researching doomsday believers for an upcoming book, "The Architecture of Apocalypticism." What ties these disparate groups together is a sense that the world's problems are too big to solve, DiTommaso said."

 A brief history of doomsdays
Source:LiveScience

Related Posts

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Climate change, media coverage, and The Daily Show

I am trying to use Daily Show clips pretty sparsely on this site.  It would be too easy just to post everything they do and call it good.  I like and agree with most of what they say, but I also want to provide additional sources for myself and others...  We can't get all of our news and analysis from a fake news show!

Today, however, I suspect that I will largely be letting Stewart and company handle the heavy lifting for me.  I am getting caught up with the show and I don't have a lot of time.  It is nice and I actually get to get out of the apartment and have some free time for myself today.

Friday, October 07, 2011

Lewis Black on 2012 Candidates, Obama, and visiting Occupy Wall Street

Actually, I am in complete agreement with him on Obama.  Someone who speaks in paragraphs was definitely all I was expecting out of his presidency (the system is too rigid for real change on the pace most people were hoping for), so I am much less disappointed than many on the left.

Anyway, I love Black.  His host, much less so, but she doesn't talk too much.




Lewis Black Live at Occupy Wall Street from Turnstyle Video on Vimeo.

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn’t real | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Wall Street Journal: neutrinos show climate change isn’t real | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine:


OpEds — editorials expressing opinions in newspapers — are sometimes a source of wry amusement. Especially when they tackle subjects where politics impact science, like evolution, or the Big Bang.
Or climate change.
Enter the OpEd page of the Wall Street Journal, with one of the most head-asplodey antiscience climate change denial pieces I have seen in a while — and I’ve seen a few. The article, written by Robert Bryce of the far-right think tank Manhattan Institute, is almost a textbook case in logical fallacy. He outlays five "truths" about climate change in an attempt to smear the reality of it.
I won’t even bother going into the first four points, where he doesn’t actually deal with science and makes points that aren’t all that salient to the issue, because it’s his last point that really needs to be seen to believe anyone could possibly make it:
The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Seriously? I mean, seriously?

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Neal Stephenson discusses America's"Innovation Starvation"

This is a very good essay by a writer I enjoy alot.  His novel Anathem is one of my favorite books ever.  It is the first novel I ever read where, as soon as I finished it, I turned back to the first page and started in again...  He is worth listening to.

Found this one via Brad on Facebook.  Thanks!

Innovation Starvation | World Policy Institute - johniac's posterous:


"I worry that our inability to match the achievements of the 1960s space program might be symptomatic of a general failure of our society to get big things done. My parents and grandparents witnessed the creation of the airplane, the automobile, nuclear energy, and the computer to name only a few. Scientists and engineers who came of age during the first half of the 20th century could look forward to building things that would solve age-old problems, transform the landscape, build the economy, and provide jobs for the burgeoning middle class that was the basis for our stable democracy.
...


The imperative to develop new technologies and implement them on a heroic scale no longer seems like the childish preoccupation of a few nerds with slide rules. It’s the only way for the human race to escape from its current predicaments. Too bad we’ve forgotten how to do it.
...


“You’re the ones who’ve been slacking off!” proclaims Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University (and one of the other speakers at Future Tense). He refers, of course, to SF writers. The scientists and engineers, he seems to be saying, are ready and looking for things to do. Time for the SF writers to start pulling their weight and supplying big visions that make sense. Hence the Hieroglyph project, an effort to produce an anthology of new SF that will be in some ways a conscious throwback to the practical techno-optimism of the Golden Age.
...



China is frequently cited as a country now executing on Big Stuff, and there’s no doubt they are constructing dams, high-speed rail systems, and rockets at an extraordinary clip. But those are not fundamentally innovative. Their space program, like all other countries’ (including our own), is just parroting work that was done 50 years ago by the Soviets and the Americans. A truly innovative program would involve taking risks (and accepting failures) to pioneer some of the alternative space launch technologies that have been advanced by researchers all over the world during the decades dominated by rockets.
...


But to grasp just how far our current mindset is from being able to attempt innovation on such a scale, consider the fate of the space shuttle’s external tanks [ETs]. Dwarfing the vehicle itself, the ET was the largest and most prominent feature of the space shuttle as it stood on the pad. It remained attached to the shuttle—or perhaps it makes as much sense to say that the shuttle remained attached to it—long after the two strap-on boosters had fallen away. The ET and the shuttle remained connected all the way out of the atmosphere and into space. Only after the system had attained orbital velocity was the tank jettisoned and allowed to fall into the atmosphere, where it was destroyed on re-entry.


At a modest marginal cost, the ETs could have been kept in orbit indefinitely. The mass of the ET at separation, including residual propellants, was about twice that of the largest possible Shuttle payload. Not destroying them would have roughly tripled the total mass launched into orbit by the Shuttle. ETs could have been connected to build units that would have humbled today’s International Space Station. The residual oxygen and hydrogen sloshing around in them could have been combined to generate electricity and produce tons of water, a commodity that is vastly expensive and desirable in space. But in spite of hard work and passionate advocacy by space experts who wished to see the tanks put to use, NASA—for reasons both technical and political—sent each of them to fiery destruction in the atmosphere. Viewed as a parable, it has much to tell us about the difficulties of innovating in other spheres.
...


Innovation can’t happen without accepting the risk that it might fail. The vast and radical innovations of the mid-20th century took place in a world that, in retrospect, looks insanely dangerous and unstable. Possible outcomes that the modern mind identifies as serious risks might not have been taken seriously—supposing they were noticed at all—by people habituated to the Depression, the World Wars, and the Cold War, in times when seat belts, antibiotics, and many vaccines did not exist. Competition between the Western democracies and the communist powers obliged the former to push their scientists and engineers to the limits of what they could imagine and supplied a sort of safety net in the event that their initial efforts did not pay off. A grizzled NASA veteran once told me that the Apollo moon landings were communism’s greatest achievement."

Friday, September 30, 2011

Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing : Discovery News

Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing : Discovery News: "Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, told lawmakers Thursday that the end of the space shuttle era has left the American human spaceflight program in an "embarrassing" state.

"We will have no American access to, and return from, low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for an unpredictable length of time in the future," Armstrong told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

"For a country that has invested so much for so long to achieve a leadership position in space exploration and exploitation, this condition is viewed by many as lamentably embarrassing and unacceptable.""

'via Blog this'

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Putting things in perspective... The Pale Blue Dot

Carl Sagan and Cosmos. Beautiful and wonderful... PBS Nova posted this on Facebook and I wanted to share it here.

 

What do Republicans have against science anyway?

Okay.  I got sucked in by another headline.  Still transferring files, though, so nothing better to do EXCEPT for getting out and enjoying the gorgeous weather!  Probably the last warm day of the fall, so I am keeping this short.  We've got nothing but drizzle and gloom on the horizon for the next ten days.

Erasing false balance: the right is more antiscience than the left | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine"I write quite a bit about how rabidly antiscience the political right in the US has become. From the attacks on science by the Bush Administration (and Newt Gingrich before that) to the political litmus test of needing to denounce evolution and global warming if you’re a candidate, the Republican party has planted its flag firmly in the ground of nonsense. At the bottom of this article is a section called Related Posts that has links to just a handful of the copious examples of this outrageous behavior.

They have also become masters at spinning this, going on the attack against science they don’t like and using the media to sow doubt. One of the most aggravating of these tactics is the one of false equivalency. For example, in a post I might lambaste yet another Republican candidate saying creationism should be taught in schools, and someone in the comments will say, "Well, people on the left are antiscience as well!"

...
And that’s why you need to read an article by my friend Chris Mooney, "Unequivocal: Today’s Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science Than Today’s Left". He lays out just how big this problem is, why the right has gone this way, and why they have solidarity among their candidates.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Chris Mooney | Unequivocal: Today’s Right is Overwhelmingly More Anti-Science Than Today's Left"Last week, I took to task a really poor USA Today op-ed making the following claim:
"In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway."

I accused the author, Alex Berezow, of constructing a false equivalence between right and left wing science abuse. The latter does occur sometimes, and I’ve given many examples (ionizing radiation risks, vaccines, GMOs, etc). But it has relatively little mainstream influence today—and can hardly compare with the sweeping denial of huge bodies of knowledge (e.g., all climate science, all evolutionary science) that we see on the right."


'via Blog this'

Here is the quote Plait pulled from Mooney's article:  "The chief reason the political right is anti-science is because it contains the Christian Right (and Tea Party, which is kind of the same thing). There is no force in American politics generating anywhere near so much unreality, in science or in other spheres, as this one. It is not just evolution, or the age of the Earth… When it comes to science, it is also anything having anything to do with abortion, reproductive health, and sexuality. Moreover, we are talking here about the willful advancement of dangerous falsehoods, and the clinging to them in the face of all evidence and refutation—because this is about unwavering certainty, and ultimately, about faith."

Full disclosure: I have yet to read the Mooney article.  See note above about the weather.  But I will.

Story Musgrave kicks ass: Thoughts on NASA's lack of vision

10 Questions with Story Musgrave - TIME:

The best of...

"Obama has no plans. Neither has NASA Washington. They don't have the courage. NASA should create a great vision, communicate it artistically and then ask Congress to execute that."

When asked what NASA's goals should be: "To explore farther out. You need to combine your robotics program with the human programs. You go out there with robots. They mine materials, they manufacture, and they assemble a habitat for humans. That's the most reliable and lowest-cost way to get humans out there. Voyager has now been to four planets. For what the space station costs, we could have had 400 Voyagers. If we'd gone that way, today we would have had 100 satellites sending data back to Earth. That's what we gave up by not having the courage to leap off and go further."

One small step for China, one impossible step for America: Falling behind in space

I told myself I wouldn't get distracted with these little posts today, but this story gets to me. Hooray for China! Now, why the hell can't the U. S. figure it out.

This nails it, for me... "It's not driven so much by science, but by the desire to develop new technologies."  And what can we do with new technologies?  Sell them.  And what does product development and the manufacturing and marketing of new technologies do for a struggling economy?  These things create jobs!

Oh yeah, and there is that whole optimism and hope thing too.

Sure, it could be said that right now they are only repeating steps that NASA took 30 years ago.  But we've, pretty much been sitting on our asses for 20 years, so they are not that far behind overall and right now, bottom line, they can put people in space and we cannot.  They are ahead and they win, for now, at least.

In a related post to follow, I think Story Musgrave does a great job putting words to many of my own concerns about the current state of the U. S. space program.

http://www.democracyindistress.com/2011/09/story-musgrave-kicks-ass-thoughts-on.html



BBC News - Rocket launches Chinese space lab
"China is investing billions of dollars in its space programme. It has a strong space science effort under way, with two orbiting satellites having already been launched to the Moon. A third mission is expected to put a rover on the lunar surface. The Asian country is also deploying its own satellite-navigation system known as BeiDou, or Compass.

Bigger rockets are coming, too. The Long March 5 will be capable of putting more than 20 tonnes in a low-Earth orbit. This lifting muscle, again, will be necessary for the construction of a space station.

"There are loads of ideas floating around, and they're serious about implementing them," said UK space scientist John Zarnecki, who is a visiting professor at Beihang University, the new name for the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

"There's a sense of great optimism. It's not driven so much by science, but by the desire to develop new technologies. The money is there, although it's not limitless. And they're taking it step by step," he told BBC News."


'via Blog this'


BBC News - China launches space lab into orbit"The 10.5m-long, cylindrical module will be unmanned for the time being, but the country's astronauts, or yuhangyuans, are expected to visit it next year.

Tiangong-1 will demonstrate the critical technologies needed by China to build a fully fledged space station - something it has promised to do at the end of the decade."


'via Blog this'

Friday, September 23, 2011

Left wing propaganda video about evolution



 And a good comment on this video from a friend of mine on Facebook:

David Finn I'm afraid that the concepts put forth in this video are just impossible for some minds to conceive. So the real question should be... "Did you ever see a Dogma turn into a cat? Or to translate, " Did you ever see a Dogma give birth to anything but itself? Answer: " It is impossible to think outside a box when the box is in control of your thinking."

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Arctic ice at second-lowest extent since 1979 | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Arctic ice at second-lowest extent since 1979 | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine: "This is simply yet another data point in an increasingly long line of evidence showing global warming is real, along with all the evidence that it’s getting worse, we’re causing it, and the spin against it by the deniers is approaching light speed. The Related Posts links below make all that clear.

I just hope that by talking about this, more and more voters will listen. In a very real sense, what happens next is up to us."

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

What will it look like when the tea party starts eating itself?

One thing the Tea Party had going for it, one thing that they will now lose as the 2012 presidential candidates are powering up, is the fact that they have never really had to run against each other. They could run around in circles, saying strange things, bashing Washington, the Democrats, the media, and even the few moderate Republican still surviving out there, but they've never had to face off against each other.

Now we have a field of presidential hopefuls and maybes emerging that have a pretty solid record of attacking hard, with cheap shots, with sound bites that treat facts as an unnecessary inconveniences, and who tend to care more about gaining widespread media coverage of their strange, outlandish comments than about the logic or even coherence of their comments, seeking name recognition more than respect. And now they are going to be going after each other, using these methods to tear each other to shreds.

The Obama crew has run one of the tightest ships in many, many years when it comes to gaffes and miscalculations from the 2008 campaign and on into the White House, but listening to the Tea Partiers, you'd think it was a ship of fools in charge. This is not to say that the current administration has been pitch perfect, and I am not talking about whether or not you agree with them politically, but they have been managing themselves in a fairly professional manner.

Still, the tea partiers and the far right latch onto any thing they can and shred away at it like a bunch of rabid sharks in a feeding frenzy. Over the last few years, they have had quite a bit of success in spite of the fact that, in traditional politics, they have made more mistakes, factual errors, gaffes, and miscalculations than any other political movement in recent history. In fact, they use what appears to be almost embarrassing amateurishness when it comes to politics as one of their biggest selling points. However, when they turn on each other, the amount of material each candidate will have to use against each other will be tremendous, and I don't even know if you can call it "going dirty" when you start by raising yourself out of the mud to take aim at those around you...

This circular firing squad will be interesting to watch. I suspect the Republican nominee will be whomever does the best job staying out of the messy fray.

The Palin-Bachmann Fight We've All Been Waiting For - Yahoo! News/The Atlantic Wire

The Palin-Bachmann Fight We've All Been Waiting For - Yahoo! News

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Science education lacking in Texas? Or is it all just atheist lies?

Bill Nye Boo'd In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun (Posted by Morgan Matthew on February 21, 2009 at 4:45am)

Pulling this over from Facebook...  

Comment number one: Where'd they even find Bill Nye!?! Didn't he fall off the planet about 10 years ago. I still remember his very first appearance on Almost Live! in Seattle when I was a wee lad, his very beginning. That may have been when it was still an hour long in the morning and still had the original host, Ross something or other, before it moved to the 11:30 PM Saturday slot and became a half hour sketch comedy show.

Comment number two: Does stuff like this even surprise us any more?

From the piece:

...nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector.

At this point, several people in the audience stormed out in fury. One woman yelled "We believe in God!" and left with three children, thus ensuring that people across America would read about the incident and conclude that Waco is as nutty as they'd always suspected.


I suspect that the outrage came less from the comment that the moon reflects the sun's light than from the fact that he questioned the validity of scripture, period.  Not so much what he said but how he said it.