Barack Obama's Real Space Omission

And this omission is common to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and
George W. Bush as well.

But I'm picking on Barack Obama for two reasons.

In his statement on space policy, he did at least address the area I'm
discussing. He talked about the need to improve science education in
America, and he related that to NASA. He spoke of such things as a
plan to recruit teachers with science backgrounds, and certain other
measures.

The other reason is that I was reminded of this issue from a web site,
not officially related to Obama's campaign, but by a supporter of his.
One item on that site expressed annoyance that Hillary's campaign was
now asking pledged delegates to switch their votes. Another noted that
Obama should emphasize why he stands ahead of Hillary Clinton and John
Edwards instead of focusing on common ground and the general election
- so that was an old item.

On the bottom of that page was an item about a 14-year-old girl from
Brazil who was very bright, but was being failed by the school system.

It was noted that just as we mainstream the mentally-retarded these
days, at least since the mid-1980s, gifted students are not being
skipped grades any more; everyone is kept in classes by age.

While an Obama supporter might realize this is a problem, the idea of
using Federal funding for education to put a stop to that - perhaps
even to set up a system of special schools for students gifted in
science and engineering related abilities, so as to create the
manpower the nation urgently needs - well, the Soviet Union did that
sort of thing, but if *we* did it, it would be primitive and
fascistic, I suppose. Even G. W. Bush doesn't dare propose such
notions. So one can hardly expect them from Obama, I fear - and, of
course, those are the measures that would be genuinely effective,
instead of just looking pretty.

Ah: here's the original item. An article entitled "Failing our
Geniuses" by John Cloud, quoted in Laura Cole's pro-Obama blog.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/lauracole

John Savard

On 22 May, 20:06, Quadibloc wrote:
And this omission is common to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and
George W. Bush as well.

But I'm picking on Barack Obama for two reasons.

In his statement on space policy, he did at least address the area I'm
discussing. He talked about the need to improve science education in
America, and he related that to NASA. He spoke of such things as a
plan to recruit teachers with science backgrounds, and certain other
measures.

The other reason is that I was reminded of this issue from a web site,
not officially related to Obama's campaign, but by a supporter of his.
One item on that site expressed annoyance that Hillary's campaign was
now asking pledged delegates to switch their votes. Another noted that
Obama should emphasize why he stands ahead of Hillary Clinton and John
Edwards instead of focusing on common ground and the general election
- so that was an old item.

On the bottom of that page was an item about a 14-year-old girl from
Brazil who was very bright, but was being failed by the school system.

It was noted that just as we mainstream the mentally-retarded these
days, at least since the mid-1980s, gifted students are not being
skipped grades any more; everyone is kept in classes by age.

While an Obama supporter might realize this is a problem, the idea of
using Federal funding for education to put a stop to that - perhaps
even to set up a system of special schools for students gifted in
science and engineering related abilities, so as to create the
manpower the nation urgently needs - well, the Soviet Union did that
sort of thing, but if *we* did it, it would be primitive and
fascistic, I suppose. Even G. W. Bush doesn't dare propose such
notions. So one can hardly expect them from Obama, I fear - and, of
course, those are the measures that would be genuinely effective,
instead of just looking pretty.

Ah: here's the original item. An article entitled "Failing our
Geniuses" by John Cloud, quoted in Laura Cole's pro-Obama blog.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/lauracole

John Savard

I must say I have written on similar lines myself, particularly with
reference to Maths. I am British and my remarks are therefore biased
to a British context, although it is relevant elsewhere. The
impression I get is that if a student is going to "nmake it" in
mathematics - Make it here means getting a good class of Maths degree
in a school with a good standard - Like Yale, Cal Tech and Oxford
(UK), they witll have the capacity to sit GCSE maths at 12. Every
single Maths student in a good university is at least 2 - 3 years
behind where they should be - in many cases a lot more.

Maths I understand is being taught like a game with various levels. If
students are being provided with thier own computers one can easily
see what level they are at. Computers maight well be the one thing
that could break down the PC educaton establishment. "We don't like
PCs - We ARE PC!". Still I suppose they could use the schools
censorship (we must protect our young people) to obstruct progress.

Another possibility is to broaden the outlook of students. There is a
violent video game that has potential. If instead of shooting people
up you had to read and write Arabic and convince tribal elders to
support you rather than Al Qaeda. That was the way you won and got to
the next level.

With Barack Obama I have another very specific comment. I know I have
mentioned tis before. He has a preacher that is quite extreme. How
this will affect his views on Evolution and Stem cell research I don't
know. The British Pariament has recently voted overwhemingly in favor
of such research. Barack is I feel someone who is a wonderful orator,
when you look closely at what he is offering he is in actual fact
offering less than either of the other two candidates.


- Ian Parker

On May 23, 7:03 am, Ian Parker wrote:
Barack is I feel someone who is a wonderful orator,
when you look closely at what he is offering he is in actual fact
offering less than either of the other two candidates.

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

John Savard

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Quadibloc made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On May 23, 7:03 am, Ian Parker wrote:
Barack is I feel someone who is a wonderful orator,
when you look closely at what he is offering he is in actual fact
offering less than either of the other two candidates.

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?

On May 23, 7:29 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Quadibloc made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?

Barack Obama doesn't seem to be inspiring people to do bad things with
his oratory. I was thinking more along the lines of John F. Kennedy.

Substance is more valuable than oratory, but I would very much like to
see a President who inspires Americans to faith in their country and
its future in a positive and unifying manner.

Of course, Ronald Reagan could have done that too, if the media had
only been on his side.

John Savard

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?

That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
Hitler, right?

What's YOUR point?

C'mon Rand, you can do better than that.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 18:46:01 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Quadibloc made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On May 23, 7:29 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:29:58 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Quadibloc made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?

Barack Obama doesn't seem to be inspiring people to do bad things with
his oratory.

It seems to be inspiring them to vote for Obama. Isn't that bad
enough? ;-)

On Fri, 23 May 2008 19:14:36 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as
to indicate that:

If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
waiting for for a long time.

Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?

That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment.

shrug

So Obama is like Hitler, right?

Apparently, insofar as he "inspires people."

What's YOUR point?

My point is that simply "inspiring" people is hardly a basis for
wanting them to be president. What they're inspired to do is
important, too.

wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 24 May, 05:47, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:
:
: If his oratory inspires people, that at least is a change we've been
: waiting for for a long time.
:
: Hitler's oratory inspired a lot of people, too. *What's your point?
:
:That strikes me as a fairly insulting comment. So Obama is like
:Hitler, right?
:
:What's YOUR point?
:

His point is obvious, if you are capable of pulling your head out and
actually thinking.

His 'point' is that, contrary to the remark that we've been waiting
for 'inspiring oratory', such is not necessarily a good thing.

It takes more than 'inspiring oratory' to make a good President. *In
fact, it is entirely unimportant in the general scheme of things.

Oratory is a gift, it should rightly be peceived as neither good nor
bad. If oratory is used to inspire people for good efforts it will be
a good thing. If Obame were to say to the American people "There are
solutions to the oil crisis, we need to work hard to try and find
them. There is a plan for the hydrogen economy, we all need to go that
extra mile. We need a little bit of extra persistence when we are
being educated, and if you have ability and are bored, for heavens
sake don't lose heart, go to a NASA camp where you will be
challenged". If he said this and Americans made greater efforts it
would be a GOOD thing.

Alas all his efforts seem to be directed to simply getting people to
vote for him. If he does make it to the White House, and I hope he
does not the voters are ging to feel a sense of emptyness, possibly
even betrayal. I do not believe he is convinced in his own mind about
the solutions that America, and indeed the West needs.

If someone cannot come out definitively in favor of Evolution, and not
play with extreme preachers, I fail to see how he can inspire anyone
in the direction I have indicated. Inspiration in any other direction
is clearly a BAD thing.


- Ian Parker