McCain lost the planetarum vote last night.

[Thegonagle]

An overhead projector? C'mon!

Young-Earth buffoons are against recreating God's night sky inside dome, inspiring kids to learn about science.

http://www.adlerplanetarium.or...tement_aboutdebate.pdf

I'm glad they responded.

If their next "overhead projector" lasts another 40 years, and helps teach millions of kids in a major metro area about space, I'd call it a good investment.

 

[Xavier434]

I like it. We spend more in Iraq every 15 minutes assuming the estimated 10 billion per month figure. I'd rather spend that money on something like this.

 

[nageov3t]

shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Already tagged that in another thread and about choked when he said it last night, I knew exactly what he was talking about, and pissed about how he was trying to portray it as a powerpoint slide projector.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I like it. We spend more in Iraq every 15 minutes assuming the estimated 10 billion per month figure. I'd rather spend that money on something like this.

But that 15 minutes in Iraq could do so much good. You just hate America!

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

 

[jonks]

Obama could have said at the debate that he didn't set that earmark but he didn't. Is the reason that he has so many earmarks for so much money that even he wasn't sure whether this was one of his? Turns out it wasn't, which would have been a good zinger for him, but oh well.

 

[Specop 007]

I'm thankful for McCain bringing it up.

He may have helped plan a weekend vacation

 

[Thegonagle]

Obama could have zinged that one eight ways from Sunday, but chose to let the statement fall flat on its own due to the sheer idiocy of it.

The point is, McCain attacked a freaking planetarium!

How low can you go, John?

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'm thinking that most science buffs aren't going to vote for McCain anyway (I sure wasn't going to), but this just gives them more reason not to. That was such a silly attack.

I'd like to see an ad that just shows a bunch of elementary school kids going on a field trip to this so-called "overhead projector" and interviewing them afterward about how much fun they had. Then cue the sinister music and talk about how McCain hates children.

 

[Thump553]

NPR carried this story this morning and they said (a) this was a bipartisan earmark, backed by both Obama and an unnamed GOP representative and (b) the new projector isn't in yet because although the earmark passed the bill hasn't been funded.

They also mentioned this will be only the second "projector" like this in the country.

Makes more sense than a bridge to nowhere-or what Palin actually built with a different earmark-the onramp connector to a (future) bridge to nowhere. That's right, there's this major road miles through nowhere that ends in a turnaround where the bridge will go.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq when I thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning?

 

[DealMonkey]

I especially enjoyed when Obama schooled McCain on the relative insignificance of earmarks when compared with more massive spending elsewhere. $18B is a significant chunk of change, which represents the total federal earmarks each year, however it starts to pale in comparison to the scope of the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial market bailout, the big three automaker bailout and on and on and on ....

 

[Thegonagle]

Homeless shelters? Are you serious? I don't even know where to begin with that one.

Let's just say that educational initiatives are by far better investments than homeless shelters.

Homeless shelters treat a symptom, but they don't prevent the disease.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I especially enjoyed when Obama schooled McCain on the relative insignificance of earmarks when compared with more massive spending elsewhere. $18B is a significant chunk of change, which represents the total federal earmarks each year, however it starts to pale in comparison to the scope of the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial market bailout, the big three automaker bailout and on and on and on ....

McCain has referred to the amount of earmarks, but made a more interesting argument in the first debate by arguing that it wasn't the amount that was the problem, it was the culture of corruption that accompanied these allocations, the lobbyists buying votes, holding fundraisers for congressmen, the feeling of obligation or fear of a drying up of funds should the congressman vote against the lobbyist, etc. McCain allocated zero earmarks and that's pretty admirable, even if he overlooks (and lies about) the federal funding Palin asked for and received.

 

[miketheidiot]

complaining about earmarks for education is sure to get you a long ways.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq when I thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning?

Federal government is responsible for national security. Right or wrong, the "Iraq war" was funded to protect national security.

A projector in the city of chicago does not benefit the whole of the United States. Instead it basically benefits the city of chicago. Because of this, the city should fund it. Else its "pork"..

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I especially enjoyed when Obama schooled McCain on the relative insignificance of earmarks when compared with more massive spending elsewhere. $18B is a significant chunk of change, which represents the total federal earmarks each year, however it starts to pale in comparison to the scope of the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial market bailout, the big three automaker bailout and on and on and on ....

McCain has referred to the amount of earmarks, but made a more interesting argument in the first debate by arguing that it wasn't the amount that was the problem, it was the culture of corruption that accompanied these allocations, the lobbyists buying votes, holding fundraisers for congressmen, the feeling of obligation or fear of a drying up of funds should the congressman vote against the lobbyist, etc. McCain allocated zero earmarks and that's pretty admirable, even if he overlooks (and lies about) the federal funding Palin asked for and received.

I think you're confusing earmarks with improper relationships with lobbyists. Earmarks are typically spent on public projects, to "bring home the bacon" to constituents. Take a look at the 2009 earmarks:

OMB database on earmarks

I'm far from an expert on this, so I'm prepared to be pwned, but I'm not aware of earmarks being associated with corruption.

 

[heyheybooboo]

There is no night sky in that area of Chicago/Wisconsin/Illinois.

For some kids it's the only stars they will ever see.

I've been part of several failed efforts for nearly 20 years to encourage dark sky measures in western North Carolina. I'm sure some yokels will condemn the eradication of light pollution as an extreme measure but we are 'lighting' terrestrial astronomy back to the Dark Ages (heh heh).

Common sense measures ('box lighting' which directs illumination downward) would go a long way in addressing the problem ...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq when I thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning?

Federal government is responsible for national security. Right or wrong, the "Iraq war" was funded to protect national security.

A projector in the city of chicago does not benefit the whole of the United States. Instead it basically benefits the city of chicago. Because of this, the city should fund it. Else its "pork"..

Wrong. If people cross state line to enjoy the services of the projector, it benefits the whole of the United States.

 

[BarneyFife]

I went to see a show there last month LOL

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq when I thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning?

Federal government is responsible for national security. Right or wrong, the "Iraq war" was funded to protect national security.

A projector in the city of chicago does not benefit the whole of the United States. Instead it basically benefits the city of chicago. Because of this, the city should fund it. Else its "pork"..

Wrong. If people cross state line to enjoy the services of the projector, it benefits the whole of the United States.

clearly falls under the commerce clause

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I especially enjoyed when Obama schooled McCain on the relative insignificance of earmarks when compared with more massive spending elsewhere. $18B is a significant chunk of change, which represents the total federal earmarks each year, however it starts to pale in comparison to the scope of the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, the financial market bailout, the big three automaker bailout and on and on and on ....

McCain has referred to the amount of earmarks, but made a more interesting argument in the first debate by arguing that it wasn't the amount that was the problem, it was the culture of corruption that accompanied these allocations, the lobbyists buying votes, holding fundraisers for congressmen, the feeling of obligation or fear of a drying up of funds should the congressman vote against the lobbyist, etc. McCain allocated zero earmarks and that's pretty admirable, even if he overlooks (and lies about) the federal funding Palin asked for and received.

I think you're confusing earmarks with improper relationships with lobbyists. Earmarks are typically spent on public projects, to "bring home the bacon" to constituents. Take a look at the 2009 earmarks:

OMB database on earmarks

I'm far from an expert on this, so I'm prepared to be pwned, but I'm not aware of earmarks being associated with corruption.

Say the board of dir of a hospital wants a new wing or a bunch of new MRI machines, etc. They can hire a lobbyist to approach their US state senator 'requesting' the funds. An unrelated bill is going through the senate and the Senator throws on a $2m appropriation for the hospital. 3 months later the hospital holds a fundraiser for the senator earning him $50,000 for his relection campaign.

This is the buying of favors I'm referring to. Now while a hospital or a university is perhaps viewed as a more sympathetic recipient of federal funding, the pattern is the same for other groups that want funding, and the Senator begins to rely on this pattern as a way of raising funds for the Senate, where after all, there are no term limits and you can make an entire career, as long as you keep the capaign coffers full.

Improper lobbyist relationships exist too even in the absense of earmarks, such as Fannie/Freddie being fined millions for improper fundraising for the chair of the Finance Committee who shut down legislation that might have had a restrictive regulatory impact.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Thegonagle

Originally posted by: loki8481
shouldn't the investment have been paid for by either the planetarium itself or the local city government?

The planetarium is a non-profit organization; I'm sure they don't want to substantially raise the admission price to cover it. And the city of Chicago isn't the only beneficiary--people from all over the area visit the planetarium. Schools throughout the region bring kids there on field trips and such. Why should the city bear 100% responsibility for something that is a regional asset?

Why should people who don't have kids and who don't plan to visit the planetarium have part of their taxes go to the "projector" especially when there are more important things to invest in -- E.g., homeless shelters? The city should pay for this because it will help tourism and bring in revenue OTHERWISE its pork.

Why should I have to pay for the war in Iraq when I thought it was a bad idea from the very beginning?

Federal government is responsible for national security. Right or wrong, the "Iraq war" was funded to protect national security.

A projector in the city of chicago does not benefit the whole of the United States. Instead it basically benefits the city of chicago. Because of this, the city should fund it. Else its "pork"..

Wrong. If people cross state line to enjoy the services of the projector, it benefits the whole of the United States.

Its pork... Okay, its late and my brains feels kinda woozy, plus its a long day at work.. but, I just came up with this, if people crossed state lines to enjoy the services of Dari's mom who for arguments sake lived in chicago, would it be okay for the government to pay for her ....err... supplies? I don't think so. If she's going to be making money, she should be responsible for them.