The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Bill Nye (not) the Romantic Guy
I found this on Politico: Nye takes Armstrong to the moon
Bill Nye, the "Science Guy," is speaking for the scientific community, near as I can tell, when he defends the Obama Administration's cancellation of manned Moon trips. But there are many who persist in a romantic idea of space travel that's all about people zooming through the cosmos--call it Star Trekism.
Evidently, some famous astronauts suffer from Star Trekism. Neil Armstrong, for instance.
Check out these comments to the Politico article:
● I will listen to astronauats before I listen to a left wing loon like Mr. Nye. Global Warming is a crock of $*$*. The decision with NASA shwo again that Mr. Obama does not believe in Americna exceptionalism and leadership. He would turn exploration over to the Russians and Chinese.
● Only in the cartoonish world of the Obama Presidency would a "science celebrity" carry more weight on matters of space exploration than actual astronauts.
● Let's see, the topic is manned space flight, and of our two commentators, one is an actual astronaut - a genuine American Hero who literally walked on the moon, and the other is a part-time comedian who was rejected several times for that very same space program. Who are you going to believe, Nye, or Neil Armstrong when the subject is manned space flight? Just saying.
● "Science Guy" is as big of an ass as his "Boss Guy." Guy Nye is not, nor will he ever be, in the same honored league as Neil Armstrong. People who ARE paying attention know that inexperienced "Boss Guy" is a crash-and-burn pretender. Any of his current appointments, except Kagen, will have only two years on the job.
On the other hand, there was this:
● Thanks to "the Science Guy" for advocating for smart space policy! Nye is this year's "Humanist of the Year" of the American Humanist Association.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f...
-
The two colleges of our district—Saddleback College and Irvine Valley College—have been dinged repeatedly by the Accreds (the ACCJC), mostly...
3 comments:
So, who should be allowed to talk about these things? I.e. who are our experts on whether we go to the moon/mars/etc. or not? Otherwise this is all possibly just a big appeal to authority, but in the fallacy sense of things.
Also the title "Astronaut" and "American Hero" are largely irrelevant to the whole deciding whether or not we should go to space.
Finally, I say these people aren't being romantic enough. Just imagine, "Government says NO to space," but "American private industry sees opportunity for privatized space travel and takes it!"
Etc.
Stop hassling NASA and go do it yourself.
this is the fight that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends... BS
I've been following this issue for years and I'm under the impression that (1) it is enormously expensive sending human beings into space and (2) we can pursue science (i.e., learn what scientists seek to learn) effectively with unmanned probes with robotic devices. Science writers such as physicist Bob Parks ("What's New") have carped for decades about NASA's tendency to fund nearly pointless manned projects while leaving relatively valuable unmanned projects unfunded. They have done this because the public conceives of space exploration as an adventure rather than as science. For instance, the Bush administration scrapped a project, near completion, that would have sent a rocket between Earth and the sun to measure energy (or something). The device would have told us much more clearly whether global climate change is occurring. Bush and Co. judged the project to be insufficiently dazzling. That project can be revived now but, again, the Star Trek factor is an obstacle. To answer your question, I would prefer that the scientific community and not politicians or the great unwashed determine the nature of our space program. Naturally, scientists and others could do what they once did: educate the public about scientific goals and the possible means of achieving them. In this instance, we have a public wholly unled.
There was a time when we could have a "national conversation" about something--e.g., whether we wish to pursue taking a man to the moon. But I'm not sure that's possible anymore given the ferocious bad faith in which so-called "conservatives" promote their causes and battle their political opposition. How likely is it that a nation that comprises, among others, those charmed by ignoramuses such as Sarah Palin (who may be more cynical than she is ignorant!) will achieve anything remotely resembling a conversation about whether the scientific community should have the loudest voice in writing the agenda for our space program? Intellectual Babel has arrived.
Post a Comment