Obama is full of stars

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge Not sure what the game plan is here. I suspect, the progressive space movement is having an effect on the Obama campaign... or Florida is beginning to shift into the "lean Obama" category in the polls. Either way it is a positive development. From the National Examiner: Some people, it's said, find religion late. Some people, it's said, find religion in a foxhole as shots are flying. And some people, like Sen. Barack Obama, find the religion in space exploration when it's late in the campaign season, criticisms over his anti-space views are flying, and rumors of a Democratic party split over space are gaining velocity. The presumptive Democratic nominee took his show on the road to Florida, swinging by rural Plant City, self-proclaimed strawberry capitol of the world, for a strawberry milkshake. Then he and his entourage headed for the Kennedy Space Center area, looking for a red, white, and blue milkshake of support from space workers and their families. Obama, who previously has called for drastic reductions in space, now apparently has seen the rocket light. After being introduced by astronaut Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fl, Obama invoked the names of Nelson and venerable multi-mission flyer Sen. John Glenn as his future space advisors. The question now is how will the new space policy be shaped? More of the same or something breathtaking?

Airhead

Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out? --Will Rogers I read this in USA Today: NASA chief regrets comments on warming The head of NASA told scientists and engineers that he regrets airing his personal views about global warming in a recent radio interview, according to a video of the meeting obstained by the Associated Press. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical." "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy," he said. Griffin made news last week when he told National Public Radio he wasn't sure global warming "is a long-term concern." Huh? Griffin is a delusional Luddite who should be the President of The Flat Earth Society, not the NASA chief. Only in George Bush's America.

Blog Against Theocracy

In August, 2005, George W. Bush endorsed "teaching the controversy," teaching "Intelligent Design" alongside evolution in our nation's schools. "Intelligent Design," for those who do not know, is little more than reverse-engineered creationish disguised as science, or, as one wag put it, "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." This is disturbing in its own right. But it gets far more disturbing when you consider the willingness of this Administration to pervert science to its needs. James E. Hanson, once NASA's director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has accused the Administration of muzzling him and censoring his findings on global warming. He was warned there would be "dire consequences" if he spoke publicly about his findings. They even had an oil lobbyist and a college dropout editing his work at the direct instruction of the White House. And then, at the end of last year, the Admnistration issued new rules requiring all scientists to submit papers and speeches for "review" before they could be presented. And it just keeps getting worse, as now scientists are forbidden from speaking at all if they disagree with Administration dogma. Of course, there is an easier solution than gagging the scientists. The government could just sign a new no-bid contract for the computers the scientists use: Enough about science. What about theocracy? Well, that's where it gets interesting. As I noted up front, Bush is pandering to his "base" by insisting that our children get "taught the controversy," as if any time a moron disagreed with Galilleo we should start teaching the earth is the center of the universe. But will "teaching the controversy" be enough? Or will the White House start tilting the controversy, too? It certainly has no trouble doing so when it comes to global warming, so why should it not do so in a fight even more of its "base" holds dear, the inerrancy of the Bible? Gag the scientists, don't let them talk about Ardipithecus ramidus, or Australopithecus afarensis, or Paranthropus robustus, or Homo habilis, or even good old Homo neanderthalensis. After all, if human beings shared the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs, what room was there for ancestors? Of course, presuming everything started on Day 1 (or is that Day 6?) fully made, what happens to the creatures that stay "created," particularly if they have to compete with the ones that didn't read the Book, so they go ahead and evolve all on their own? I think we know the answer to that: The truth of the matter is (and now I'm just pumping in cartoons as part of Blogging Against Theocracy Weekend), the whole concept of religion is just one of explaining what you don't understand (and then using it to control people, but that's another story entirely): While people insist we "respect" religion in a way we would never even consider respecting other fairy tales, does it really have that many good lessons for us? Sure, people pick and choose the parts they like, or the parts that support their own particular hatreds or prejudices, but is that any way to construct morality? Ultimately, though, it's really pretty simple. The Bush way, the theocrats way, is one that insists we accept faithful ignorance over reason, and that is most certainly NOT the way to assure our nation's future: