McCain lied about the "$3 million overhead projector"
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
(the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in
the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain's
statement during the today's debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked "$3
million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My
friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"
The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved
spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment
(overhead projector).
The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full
dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the
Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of
equipment.
I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education
tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with
millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium's
focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on
inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue
careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the
time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
of alarm a waste?
"American's ability to compete in a 21st Century economy rests on our
continued investments in math and science education," said Rep. Brian
Baird, Chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in
Congress, after the passage of The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of
2007.
Considering such investments "wasteful earmarks" today, even in the
face of the financial crisis, will severely cripple US economic
competitiveness in the increasingly high-tech world down the road.
— Andrey Kravtsov, Chicago, IL
----------------------------------------------------
Anyone who would call a full-dome planetarium projection system an
"overhead projector" is totally ignorant of even basic science. Oh,
wait -- I forgot -- McCain's a Republicon -- they have no use for
science -- according to their one and only science text, the Earth was
created 6,000 years ago.
TheTruth
Helpful person
You think that's bad?
The city of Toledo, Ohio turned down a millage (equivalent to $5 per
household) which resulted in the closure of their COSI hands on
museum. This was the most impressive museum of it's type that i have
ever seen. It was a wonderful educational tool having not only
exhibits and theaters but also a pletherer of live scientific
demonstrations.
Shame on Toledo!
Vandar
> I am an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Chicago
> (the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in
> the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain's
> statement during the today's debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked "$3
> million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My
> friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"
>
> The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved
> spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment
> (overhead projector).
>
> The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater - a full
> dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the
> Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of
> equipment.
Right... it isn't an overhead projector, it's a piece of equipment that
projects images overhead. Got it.
> I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education
> tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with
> millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark.
Was the old one broken?
> The planetarium's
> focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on
> inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue
> careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the
> time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
> of alarm a waste?
In this economy, YES.
> "American's ability to compete in a 21st Century economy rests on our
> continued investments in math and science education," said Rep. Brian
> Baird, Chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in
> Congress, after the passage of The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of
> 2007.
>
> Considering such investments "wasteful earmarks" today, even in the
> face of the financial crisis, will severely cripple US economic
> competitiveness in the increasingly high-tech world down the road.
>
> — Andrey Kravtsov, Chicago, IL
The astronomer fancies himself an economist. How cute.
Citizen Jimserac
<PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education
> tool for public (largely children) for a historic planetarium with
> millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium's
> focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is "on
> inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue
> careers in science." Is an investment in such public facility at the
> time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
> of alarm a waste?
Many thanks for being alert to expose the real attitudes
of McCain and the neo-con corporatists towards education.
McCain talks up a storm about new jobs, new alternative energy
projects and all the great things he is going to do but the whole
thing EVAPORATES when you look for details - and that is the key.
The real attitude of the corporatists is that they regard
human BEINGS as "human resources" and these human "resources"
they wish to obtain the use of at the cheapest possible cost,
just like cable, wood, bricks or any other object - in other words,
the complete deHumanization and deminution of labor.
The sooner people identify and expose this underlying contempt
for our citizens which is just beneath the surface of the neo-con
anti-Americanism, the sooner we can overthrow and remove them
from our government.
The insidious nature of the neo-con is that this anti-Americanism is
concealed
beneath loud claims of "patriotism" and insults and attacks against
Obama,
attempting to portray any opposition as "surrender" . This attitude,
challenging
the Americanism and patriotism of opponents while engaging in
activities which themselves weaken the country while
establishing an interregnum of coporatist influence
is fundamentally dangerous and must be challenged by
every citizen (and citizen to be!).
Many thanks
Citizen Jimserac
Chris L Peterson
>>Is an investment in such public facility at the
>> time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
>> of alarm a waste?
>
>In this economy, YES.
If we don't start getting _very_ serious about producing more scientists
and engineers, our economy isn't going to recover. We're falling behind
the rest of the world in this respect. Nearly all of our economic growth
in the last 75 years can be tied to science and technology.
A slow economy doesn't mean you have to stop spending all public money.
This sounds like spending with a high potential return on investment.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Dennis Woos
>>> time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
>>> of alarm a waste?
>>
>>In this economy, YES.
>
> If we don't start getting _very_ serious about producing more scientists
> and engineers, our economy isn't going to recover. We're falling behind
> the rest of the world in this respect. Nearly all of our economic growth
> in the last 75 years can be tied to science and technology.
>
> A slow economy doesn't mean you have to stop spending all public money.
> This sounds like spending with a high potential return on investment.
To be fair, I don't believe that McCain would oppose the appropriation if he
knew what it was for. I think it likely that someone gave him this info as a
debate point without doing sufficient research. That said, I wouldn't argue
that McCain isn't a knucklehead for using this info without checking it out
first. Pretty embarrassing!
Dennis
Nigel Brooks
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf03bf97-9f89-45ae...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
All very interesting - but I believe the point is that the taxpayers of the
United States of America should not have to be the ones funding an upgrade
to the Sky Theatre through earmarks tacked onto legislation.
In all honesty - if a politician wishes to provide benefits for his
constituency it would be far better for him to introduce a specific bill
aimed at that benefits rather than the current dishonest practice of
attaching it to major legislation.
The funding of enhancements for the Sky Theatre are perhaps something that
the good citizens of Chicago or the folks who attend the University of
Chicago ought to be doing themselves.
Nigel Brooks
Rick Evans
> Right... it isn't an overhead projector, it's a piece of equipment that projects images overhead. Got it.
You obviously don't know what an overhead projector does.
--
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak
out and remove all doubt."
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 33"
Lat +42° 11' 07"
Rick Evans
>>>>Is an investment in such public facility at the
>>>> time when US competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source
>>>> of alarm a waste?
>>>
>>>In this economy, YES.
>>
>> If we don't start getting _very_ serious about producing more scientists
>> and engineers, our economy isn't going to recover. We're falling behind
>> the rest of the world in this respect. Nearly all of our economic growth
>> in the last 75 years can be tied to science and technology.
>>
>> A slow economy doesn't mean you have to stop spending all public money.
>> This sounds like spending with a high potential return on investment.
>
> To be fair, I don't believe that McCain would oppose the appropriation if he knew what it was for.
Really? Recently he ridiculed an appropriation to study the DNA of
grizzly bears. I wonder what his reaction would have been thirty years
ago to a grant going to the study of jellyfish proteins. --
i_hate...@yahoo.com
That's how McCain is.... guns always drawn, and shooting wildly!
Ferd
> I am an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Chicago
> (the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in
> the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain's
> statement during the today's debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked "$3
> million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My
> friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"
go outside at night and look up into the sky for free.
Chris L Peterson
>go outside at night and look up into the sky for free.
You ever tried that from Chicago?
!Jones
Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved
>spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment
>(overhead projector).
It doesn't surprise me.
I think that McCain's issue was that it was tacked onto another
bill... that's what I think I heard, anyway. U-Chi is a great
school... I'm not knockin' it at all. OTOH, it *is* a private
institution. If it needs funds, then these should be raised through
student fees or through alumni donations... or apply for a federal NSF
grant and get in line. It shouldn't be appropriated as an "earmark".
Jones
Dennis Woos
> bill... that's what I think I heard, anyway. U-Chi is a great
> school... I'm not knockin' it at all. OTOH, it *is* a private
> institution. If it needs funds, then these should be raised through
> student fees or through alumni donations... or apply for a federal NSF
> grant and get in line. It shouldn't be appropriated as an "earmark".
I don't believe that the Adler Planetarium is affiliated with the University
of Chicago, but rather is an independent non-profit organization with
historical ties to the Chicago Park District.
http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/aboutus/index.shtml
I think that there had to have been many better targets for McCain - he must
not have known what kind of "projector" he was talking about.
Dennis
Mark Dodel
<PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
->
-> The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved
-> spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment
-> (overhead projector).
->
Seriously, do you really think that someone as thought challenged and
incurious as John McCain would know the difference. He picked Sarah
"Gee whiz by golly" Palin just to make himself look smarter.
Mark
--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel
Warpstock 2008 - Santa Cruz, California: http://www.warpstock.org
Warpstock Europe 2008 - Düsseldorf, Germany: http://www.warpstock.eu
Vandar
> "Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1F8Hk.1090$hB1....@newsfe02.iad...
>
>> Right... it isn't an overhead projector, it's a piece of equipment
>> that projects images overhead. Got it.
>
>
> You obviously don't know what an overhead projector does.
I know exactly what one does.
...
news:6l4lq2F...@mid.individual.net:
>
> All very interesting - but I believe the point is that the taxpayers
> of the United States of America should not have to be the ones funding
> an upgrade to the Sky Theatre through earmarks tacked onto
> legislation.
>
> In all honesty - if a politician wishes to provide benefits for his
> constituency it would be far better for him to introduce a specific
> bill aimed at that benefits rather than the current dishonest practice
> of attaching it to major legislation.
>
> The funding of enhancements for the Sky Theatre are perhaps something
> that the good citizens of Chicago or the folks who attend the
> University of Chicago ought to be doing themselves.
>
> Nigel Brooks
>
>
Even if it wasn't an earmark, per se, it was still pork barrel spending.
How long did they know it would no longer be repairable next time it broke?
The thing was 40 yers old, how long DID they think someone would continue
to make parts for it?
They should have been holding fund raisers.
Quadibloc
> If we don't start getting _very_ serious about producing more scientists
> and engineers, our economy isn't going to recover. We're falling behind
> the rest of the world in this respect. Nearly all of our economic growth
> in the last 75 years can be tied to science and technology.
That is one step that should indeed be taken. But by itself, it won't
solve the problem - and there are other essential steps that are much
less likely to be taken, unless the need is known.
After Sputnik, the country took producing scientists and engineers
seriously. After they were created, the space program and the defense
industry had *jobs* waiting for them - as well as academia, and non-
military private industry.
If you educate people and have no use for their talents, you haven't
achieved much. As it happens, I don't think that the only thing
encouraging Intel to outsource some of their chip design to India is
the state of the U.S. educational system. The wage differential - and
the fact that they *can* do this now - is a bigger factor.
America invented the atomic bomb. Upside: World War II was shortened.
Downside: the Russians got their hands on it. Could be politicians are
quite scared of what would happen if the terrorists got their hands on
nanotech, and have decided that technical progress is a bad idea.
The success of fearmongering against nuclear power was bad enough in
itself, was worse after the oil embargo of 1973, when energy
independence became a serious concern, and is now disastrous given
that global warming is a *real* problem, unlike the ones about which
environmentalists had previously cried "Wolf"!
A digital projection system for a planetarium is not a glorified
overhead projector. You could call it a fancier version of an LCD
projector with *some* accuracy. That helps to interest children in
science and thus promotes education.
Better funding for schools and colleges is the next step.
But ultimately, you have to have something you need scientists and
engineers to do. Where is the push going to come from that the space
program and defense spending gave to the high-tech sector? What do we
want these scientists and engineers to do for us so badly that we're
willing to pay for it?
So far, to that question, I hear a resounding silence.
I would like to see scientists solve the energy and global warming
problem, or land a man on Mars, or cure old age. Not enough taxpaying
voters seem to be too concerned about such things, though.
If the big problem isn't solved, then maybe money spent on taking only
the first step _is_ wasted.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> I know exactly what one does.
For those of us who don't, an overhead projector illuminates a
transparent sheet of plastic from behind, and a lens overhead lets
people see what someone wrote on that sheet of plastic with a felt pen
by projecting it on a screen.
The device in the planetarium doesn't project drawings on a sheet of
plastic while the lecturer talks, or even stuff drawn on an electronic
whiteboard. It projects digital movies.
So it's a $3 million LCD projector, not a $3 million overhead
projector. So I think you *would* get lost in an office supply store.
John Savard
jay
> for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, IL
Why is the funding for the projector in Chicago, IL being allocated in
CONgress? Shouldn't it be funded at the state or city level?
!Jones
<dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote:
>I don't believe that the Adler Planetarium is affiliated with the University
>of Chicago, but rather is an independent non-profit organization with
>historical ties to the Chicago Park District.
>
>http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/aboutus/index.shtml
>
>I think that there had to have been many better targets for McCain - he must
>not have known what kind of "projector" he was talking about.
>
>Dennis
It wouldn't surprise me either way. I didn't learn anything new in
the debate. It seems that McCain should be touting his own record on
earmarks, which is really quite good. I'm not going to vote for him;
however, I'll give credit where it's due.
Jones
timeOday
And why pour money into this "ArpaNet" thingy when the private sector
already has GEnie online and Prodigy?
Rick Evans
"timeOday" <timeOda...@theknack.net> wrote in message
news:WY6dnWi8hc9ZznDV...@comcast.com...
> Rick Evans wrote:
>> "Dennis Woos" <dpw...@gmavt.net> wrote in message Really? Recently he
>> grizzly bears. I wonder what his reaction would have been thirty years
>> ago to a grant going to the study of jellyfish proteins. --
>
>
> And why pour money into this "ArpaNet" thingy when the private sector
> already has GEnie online and Prodigy?
LOL!
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04'
Lat +42° 11'
Rick Evans
"Mark Dodel" <madode...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:cLdq6jdb1N4Q-pn2-c3qSICO0doyq@localhost...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 19:48:54 UTC, "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
> <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ->
> -> The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved
> -> spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment
> -> (overhead projector).
> ->
>
> Seriously, do you really think that someone as thought challenged and
> incurious as John McCain would know the difference. He picked Sarah
> "Gee whiz by golly" Palin just to make himself look smarter.
In fairness to McCain he picked Palin because she was
a pitbull with lipstick. Someone had once told him that
"If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."
--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------