Goodbye.

Davoud:
Bush has demonstrated that science must agree with the right-wing
ideologues who pull his puppet strings, or be rejected...

Phil Wheeler:
And this has what to do with astronomy?

A great deal.

John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*. He has criticized President Bush for relying on ideology
rather than fact in the pursuit of science and repeated his pledge to
overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines.

And this has what to do with astronomy?

Ask physicists James Cronin of the University of Chicago and Leon
Lederman, former director of Fermilab, who were among the Nobel
laureautes the Nobel laureate physicists who endorsed John Kerry.

Now see if you can figure out which one would be more likely to ban
federal funding for research in astronomy and cosmology because their
findings contradict the dogma that the Universe is 4,000 years old.

...from someone obviously from the extreme left.

Extreme left? That's an understatement, but thank you! I'm a citizen of
the great country that _invented_ the concept of revolution by the
radical left. And thank you for not calling me a liberal! The
right-wing extremists who hold power in this country have pushed me so
far to the left that I'm beginning to wonder if maybe Trotsky and
Lenin, both of whom I have long admired, might have, in fact, been
Reagan Republicans.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Phil Wheeler wrote:

A very long and illogical stretch from someone obviously from the
extreme left. Kerry has said nothing to support your assumptions.

Phil

Wow! You're so far to the right of center you can't even hold your dick
to pee, let alone tie your left shoe! ;-)

Shawn

Phil Wheeler wrote:

A very long and illogical stretch from someone obviously from the
extreme left. Kerry has said nothing to support your assumptions.

Phil

Wow! You're so far to the right of center you can't even hold your dick
to pee, let alone tie your left shoe! ;-)

Shawn

Davoud wrote:
Phil Wheeler:

I've seen no particular astronomy policy discriminators among the candidates
(likely not a big vote getter!) -- though Nader may have said something.


Nader isn't a candidate.


In your dreams.

Bush has demonstrated that science must agree with the right-wing
ideologues who pull his puppet strings, or be rejected. Bush removed
information about the global warming threat from a 2003 Environmental
Protection Agency report; ordered changes to a report that described
damage that would be caused by oil-drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and deleted information about condoms from government
Web sites. His future budget proposals call for cuts in the National
Science Foundation, the EPA, and the Veterans Affairs Department (yes,
it's an important scientific research organization).


And this has what to do with astronomy?

John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*. He has criticized President Bush for relying on ideology
rather than fact in the pursuit of science and repeated his pledge to
overturn the ban on federal funding of research on new stem cell lines.


And this has what to do with astronomy?

Now see if you can figure out which one would be more likely to ban
federal funding for research in astronomy and cosmology because their
findings contradict the dogma that the Universe is 4,000 years old.


A very long and illogical stretch from someone obviously from the
extreme left. Kerry has said nothing to support your assumptions.

Phil

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Phil Wheeler:
I've seen no particular astronomy policy discriminators among the
candidates
(likely not a big vote getter!) -- though Nader may have said something.

Nader isn't a candidate.

Bush has demonstrated that science must agree with the right-wing
ideologues who pull his puppet strings, or be rejected.

You must be reading the editorial pages of Le Monde, which is very similar
to the NYT or the LAT. Try to temper the bull**** you read from these
leftist rags with a bit of reality from the Wall Street Journal or the
Washington Times.



Bush removed
information about the global warming threat from a 2003 Environmental
Protection Agency report; ordered changes to a report that described
damage that would be caused by oil-drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and deleted information about condoms from government
Web sites. His future budget proposals call for cuts in the National
Science Foundation, the EPA, and the Veterans Affairs Department (yes,
it's an important scientific research organization).

You take a kernel of truth and wrap it in multiple layers of leftist
rhetoric. What you end up with is BS. I can tell you the following with a
reasonable degree of accuracy...

If we had started drilling in ANWR four years ago, we would be thumbing our
noses at the Saudis today...and the price of gas would still be under a
dollar.



John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*.

This proves that scientists know much about science and absolutely _nothing_
about politics.



Al




Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"Al" wrote in message, in response to Davoud...

[snip]

John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*.

This proves that scientists know much about science and absolutely _nothing_
about politics.

Hmmm; if what you say is true, Al, what does that say about what
politicians know about science?

I, for one, am one scientist who knows enough about politics to know
that my current favorite presidential candidate is "None of the
Above".

If we had started drilling in ANWR four years ago, we would be thumbing our
noses at the Saudis today...and the price of gas would still be under a
dollar.

We can, of course, "thumb our noses at the Saudis" anytime we wish; it
would be kinda dumb (and not very grateful), but feel free.

[If someone really wishes to thumb a nose at OPEC, may I suggest a
better place to start would be by conserving energy? Better insulate
our homes and offices, drive more economically, consider alternative
fuels, etc. The US, with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of
the world's energy.]

ANWR at full production has a capacity of 2% of total US oil
consumption. It would have some moderating effect on gas prices, but
not what you envision.

(And ANWR stands for, what again? Arctic National WILDLIFE REFUGE?
Uh, OK.)

Given all that has been discussed about drilling at ANWR, I have NOT
heard what I feel is the most logical answer. LEAVE THE OIL THERE
UNTIL WE REALLY NEED IT!! Compared to known proven reserves, there
isn't an ocean of oil at ANWR. Also, given the difficulites of
extracting from this field, it isn't cheap oil, either. So, leave it
there until everyone else has used their supply. Then ANWR will
really be worth something!

¤ Clear skies & a star to steer by! Michael ¤

************************************************* ******
Michael Foerster ¤ Pres/Research Lead, Skywatch-GL
¤Solar System Ambassador, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
¤Night Sky Net Coordinator, The Starry-Nite Society
¤E-Address:
¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics magazine, forecasting the relentless
march of science, 1949
************************************************* ******

"Al" wrote in message, in response to Davoud...

[snip]

John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*.

This proves that scientists know much about science and absolutely _nothing_
about politics.

Hmmm; if what you say is true, Al, what does that say about what
politicians know about science?

I, for one, am one scientist who knows enough about politics to know
that my current favorite presidential candidate is "None of the
Above".

If we had started drilling in ANWR four years ago, we would be thumbing our
noses at the Saudis today...and the price of gas would still be under a
dollar.

We can, of course, "thumb our noses at the Saudis" anytime we wish; it
would be kinda dumb (and not very grateful), but feel free.

[If someone really wishes to thumb a nose at OPEC, may I suggest a
better place to start would be by conserving energy? Better insulate
our homes and offices, drive more economically, consider alternative
fuels, etc. The US, with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of
the world's energy.]

ANWR at full production has a capacity of 2% of total US oil
consumption. It would have some moderating effect on gas prices, but
not what you envision.

(And ANWR stands for, what again? Arctic National WILDLIFE REFUGE?
Uh, OK.)

Given all that has been discussed about drilling at ANWR, I have NOT
heard what I feel is the most logical answer. LEAVE THE OIL THERE
UNTIL WE REALLY NEED IT!! Compared to known proven reserves, there
isn't an ocean of oil at ANWR. Also, given the difficulites of
extracting from this field, it isn't cheap oil, either. So, leave it
there until everyone else has used their supply. Then ANWR will
really be worth something!

¤ Clear skies & a star to steer by! Michael ¤

************************************************* ******
Michael Foerster ¤ Pres/Research Lead, Skywatch-GL
¤Solar System Ambassador, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab
¤Night Sky Net Coordinator, The Starry-Nite Society
¤E-Address:
¤N42°31'13.3" ¤ W83°08'43.2" ¤ 668' ¤ -5 GMT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
FAMOUS LAST WORDS - A SERIES
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Popular Mechanics magazine, forecasting the relentless
march of science, 1949
************************************************* ******

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Phil Wheeler:
I've seen no particular astronomy policy discriminators among the
candidates
(likely not a big vote getter!) -- though Nader may have said something.

Nader isn't a candidate.

Bush has demonstrated that science must agree with the right-wing
ideologues who pull his puppet strings, or be rejected.

You must be reading the editorial pages of Le Monde, which is very similar
to the NYT or the LAT. Try to temper the bull**** you read from these
leftist rags with a bit of reality from the Wall Street Journal or the
Washington Times.



Bush removed
information about the global warming threat from a 2003 Environmental
Protection Agency report; ordered changes to a report that described
damage that would be caused by oil-drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and deleted information about condoms from government
Web sites. His future budget proposals call for cuts in the National
Science Foundation, the EPA, and the Veterans Affairs Department (yes,
it's an important scientific research organization).

You take a kernel of truth and wrap it in multiple layers of leftist
rhetoric. What you end up with is BS. I can tell you the following with a
reasonable degree of accuracy...

If we had started drilling in ANWR four years ago, we would be thumbing our
noses at the Saudis today...and the price of gas would still be under a
dollar.



John Kerry has just earned the endorsement of *48 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists*.

This proves that scientists know much about science and absolutely _nothing_
about politics.



Al




Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Phil Wheeler:
I've seen no particular astronomy policy discriminators among the
candidates
(likely not a big vote getter!) -- though Nader may have said something.

Nader isn't a candidate.

I presume what you meant to say is that Nader isn't a "viable" candidate, as
he certainly is a candidate.

Davoud wrote:
Nader isn't a candidate.

Paul Lawler replied:
I presume what you meant to say is that Nader isn't a "viable" candidate, as
he certainly is a candidate.

Yes; the definition that I chose to use is "one likely or suited to
undergo or be chosen for something specified."

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com