McCain lost the planetarum vote last night.

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: 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.

The sky show at Adler Planetarium is one of most memorable experiences of my childhood.

It was more than 15 years ago, but I still remember the show I saw with on a field trip with my elementray school class at Chrismas time. They recreated the sky at the time of Jesus's birth, and showed that there was some kind of event that would produce a "star" brighter than any seen in a long time. I forget the theory of what it actually was.

I think it was the beginning of the end of my being a Christian. Once I started thinking about the "magic" from the bible in a logical, scientific way, I couldn't accept anything at face value anymore.

But if that projector contributed to my questioning the bible, I can see why McCain and his ilk would hate it.

 

[Thegonagle]

A school bus carting kids in from the suburbs of Chicago, Gary, Indiana, or Kenosha, Wisconsin, for example, to visit a non-profit organization is not bringing tourism or commerce to the city of Chicago, and that's never been the point of having a planetarium.

I think the non-profit part is getting lost in the mix here.

 

[chucky2]

I live in the Chicagoland area (Crook County no less, so subject to Chicago taxes), and in no way should Federal dollars be spent on a planetarium here.

This is not some place like rural Alabama that needs a new water treatment plant but has no way of affording it, this is Chicago with the highest tax rate in the country. If Chicago needs/wants a planetarium, then they/we can fund it out of our own funds. There's people that live in this area that could write a $3M check.

F'ing rediculous that some poor bastard in Kansas is getting taxed so one of the richest areas in American/World can put in a plantetarium projector, no matter how costly.

The point here is that this Federal request should never have been made, regardless of the current status of funding.

Chuck

 

[ElFenix]

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?

seems like a state asset. not sure why the feds should be involved, other than the fact that the feds have the deepest pockets.

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

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

not to mention the energy savings involved by allowing use of lower power bulbs

 

[DukeN]

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

Perhaps you should pause and reflect on an investment in science that will help kids for ages before making a baseless statement against something just because your idol Muckcain reflected your sentiments.

 

[cKGunslinger]

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"..

I don't plan on driving on any highways other than those in a 2-3 state radius. I guess Federal Highways funds are also pork under this definition?


Also, I'm not exactly sure Iraq was what I'd call a huge "threat to national security."

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: eleison

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"..

Or "general welfare" which the government is also constitutionally responsible for.
Of course some people stopped reading at "common defense."

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: eleison

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

your statement is false about the iraq war. therefore your whole premise is false.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: DukeN

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

Perhaps you should pause and reflect on an investment in science that will help kids for ages before making a baseless statement against something just because your idol Muckcain reflected your sentiments.

I paused. I thought about it.

why is it the federal government's responsibility to make sure that a planetarium in the city of Chicago in the state of Illinois has a projector?

I'm all for museums, but this seems like a city/state issue, not something the federal government should be paying for.

 

[Born2bwire]

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.

Because investments in science and education furthers the country as a whole. The planetarium serves to educate the populace and inspire excitement and interest in science. The people, and especially kids, that go on to seek careers in science due to projects such as these provide immeaserable benefit to the country as a whole. Given how unique the planetarium is, we can safely expect that a wide variety of people across the tri-state area and the country at large will seek to take advantage.

 

[GroundedSailor]

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"..

The Iraq war was a fraud on the American people and a product of fear selling.

Protect national security - my ass.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: 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.

Typically in a debate you want to be on the offensive. Time is limited, so you can't spend 30 seconds rebutting one fairly minor point. You'd also have to worry about being seen as "pro-earmarks" which McCain is trying to paint him as. It's best just to drop it and change the subject back to your strength.

 

[Insomniator]

McCain is not saying learning is not important. He is saying that it shouldn't cost 3 million dollars.

Bloated figures like that end up being billions of dollars of wasted money. Maybe his wasn't the best target as obviously people are going to defend
a non-profit, children oriented program but the point remains.

3 million dollar projects add up quick.

though he wants the gov to buy 300 billion in mortgages so I don't know what the fuck is goin on

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: eleison

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"..

i agree. its pork. it should be up to the local government to fund things like this. we need to go back to having the local government be more responsible.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
McCain is not saying learning is not important. He is saying that it shouldn't cost 3 million dollars.

Bloated figures like that end up being billions of dollars of wasted money. Maybe his wasn't the best target as obviously people are going to defend
a non-profit, children oriented program but the point remains.

3 million dollar projects add up quick.

though he wants the gov to buy 300 billion in mortgages so I don't know what the fuck is goin on

Ummm...and how much SHOULD it cost? This isn't a slide projector for a class of 30 kids, it's a highly specialized device to recreate the sky and is very rare (there are only a handful). This device will allow millions of kids (yes and even adults) a learnig experience they can't get anywhere else!
I don't know about Adler, but Griffith Park Observatory has one as well, and several thousand kids a day come to see the show that only it can perform.

That's pure education at a bargain price!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

seems like a state asset. not sure why the feds should be involved, other than the fact that the feds have the deepest pockets.

No. It's not a State Asset. It's not a City Asset. It's not a Federal Asset.

It is an independently operated non-denominational, non-profit organization that requested federal assistance.

Just like the other non-profits like: Red Cross or the World Wildlife Fund etc....

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
McCain is not saying learning is not important. He is saying that it shouldn't cost 3 million dollars.

Bloated figures like that end up being billions of dollars of wasted money. Maybe his wasn't the best target as obviously people are going to defend
a non-profit, children oriented program but the point remains.

3 million dollar projects add up quick.

though he wants the gov to buy 300 billion in mortgages so I don't know what the fuck is goin on

It seems you have no idea the costs to research, design, and then construct such a complex piece of equipment. Not to mention the costs of service and parts the manufacturer has to provide. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't cost more than $3 million.

This thing will last several decades. Spend $3 million now to educate and inspire millions of kids for years to come? That's a freaking bargain.