I almost let this go. I almost decided to mostly ignore my friend Mr.Herdwatcher’s blog post challenging a casual point I’d made having to do with climate change and anti-science attitudes, and the VP debate.
Then two things happened:
- The 2nd Presidential Debate and Sen. McCain’s criticism about Obama’s 3 million dollar earmark for an "overhead projector" for the Adler Planetarium.
- The exchange I wrote about on MindTweaks this morning, about a group of teenager’s total ignorance of basic Earth Science including moon phases and the basics of our solar system.
These two items may not seem connected, but bear with me, they are.
McCain’s comment about an "overhead projector" raised my eyebrows - something told me there was a lot more to the story than overpriced office equipment. There was.
The projector in question was a theater system for the Adler Planetarium’s sky show - the central attraction of any urban Planetarium, the bit where the stars are projected on the ceiling of the theater itself. An overhead theater system is crucial to the educational programs of a Planetarium - especially one that serves a light-polluted city where people cannot just walk outside, look up, and observe the stars. But the Adler’s existing theater system was 40 years old, failing, and no longer supported by the manufacturer (parts were no longer available). It had already been rebuilt multiple times, and the latest overhaul estimate was for over 4 million dollars.
Sure, there are questions about whether or not the Federal Government should help pay for science education programs on a local level. Personally, I have no problem with it, because educating children in Chicago (and adults for that matter) about science and the world around us has potential benefits that reach well beyond Chicago, including inspiring future scientists.
I understand that others feel differently, and that’s fine… but the program itself has value, and is hardly in the same category as the Bridge to Nowhere type earmarks that only benefit the immediate community (and cost far more money)
If Obama has requested as much wasteful "pork" as McCain claims, you’d would think there would be better examples of wasteful spending than educational science programs - the sort of educational science programs that fight the ignorance of the teens my husband encountered last night, the sort of educational science programs that might just enlighten his co-workers who believe that astronomy is part of Neo-Darwinist Evolution propaganda, the sort of programs that make sure people know that the stars are not *painted* on the inside of his telescopes. (Yes, people have actually said that to him.)
Do I think McCain (or his advisors) chose this example specifically because pointing out a planetarium as an absurdity would play well to members of the far religious right? Not really. I’m not quite that cynical (yet).
I think he chose it because "a 3 million dollar overhead projector" sounds absurd and pretty darn wasteful.
But the objection to that specific earmark makes me wonder about McCain’s commitment and understanding of modern science, as does another example he’s trotted out often over the past few years, funding for a study of Grizzly Bear DNA.
Hey, Yogi…. Whose Yer Daddy?
"Approach a bear," McCain told the Senate, in 2003, "that bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you. We have to get the DNA. The DNA doesn’t fit, you got to acquit."
Funny or not, the Grizzly Bear DNA bruhaha is a really bad example of "pork" and it seems down right mocking of science.
The actual project being funded was a cheaper, safer, more accurate and efficient method of establishing the numbers and health of the endangered Grizzly Bear population, and its results (due in 2009) will contain provide crucial information not just for the preservation of the bears, but for the timber, mining and drilling groups who want rights to work in the currently off-limits areas.
Repeatedly mocking the project encourages a disregard for the use of science, even when it saves money, even when it has potential benefits to both environmental and business interests.
Again, I don’t think McCain has anything against Grizzly Bears, and I’m pretty sure he uses this example because it gets laughs. But the effect of his Bear joke is one of mocking science - and when part of the Republican base is actively opposed to science, that’s a big problem for me.
And yes, I realize this is all tangential to Mr.Herdwatcher’s claims… I’ll also be writing about Climate Change, also, tomorrow - you betcha! <wink>
And for the record? The bill that included funds for the overhead theater projector never made it out of committee, so no one voted for it. The Planetarium appears to have gotten their system up and running again, anyway.
McCain voted for the bill that included the Grizzly Bear Project earmark, and did not object, even though he introduced ammendments arguing against several other earmarks on that bill.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Diane 10.10.08 at 4:31 am
Hi Tori, I stumbled upon your both of your blogs yesterday while looking into different WordPress themes and templates for a blog I am planning to launch shortly. Your writing is smart, funny and insightful and I am glad I found you. I was distressed to read you recount the story of your husband’s encounter outside of Walmart. For me, it was less the teen’s rage, far more the self-righteous ignorance, that troubled me most. As for McCain’s criticism of funding for a planetarium, I too, had the same reaction as you. I am not in a science field so I have no personal stake here; nevertheless, I was troubled to think that our funding for the sciences could be under attack by those with small minds. As for the bear study, it is being reported on MSNBC that ironically, McCain actually voted for in favor of this funding. I haven’t checked independently, but if it’s true, McCain has become his own bad punchline.
Tori Deaux 10.10.08 at 3:35 pm
Hi Diane, and thank you for the compliments : )
I live in the Dallas area, where Evangelical churches have a significant influence. ( I wish there were a more specific term - because certainly not all Evangelical Christians or their churches support scientific ignorance) I’m used to the self-righteous ignorance, we see a *lot* of it - but the aggressiveness towards a stranger is new… though its been increasing for a while. (I seem to recall a similar incident where a group of young Christians accosted him inside the Walmart one day - they were escorted out by management)
He isn’t provoking it, beyond casual comments about astronomy and science - though he has a presence that people respond to strongly, and often seems confrontational when he’s not intending to be. If someone is looking for a fight, they often aim it in his direction.
Still, the image of roving gangs of extremist evangelicals in Walmart is both hysterical and frightening.
As for the Grizzly’s, here’s an excerpt from FactCheck:
Despite the fun McCain had ridiculing the bear project on the Senate floor, he didn’t actually try to remove it from the bill. He did introduce several amendments, including three to reduce funding for projects he considered wasteful or harmful, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.
My take? I don’t think McCain is really anti-Science, just thoughtless of the impact and implications of the examples he trots out as “wasteful earmarks”.
Diane 10.10.08 at 9:38 pm
You’re right! The image of a roving gang of extremist evangelicals is both hysterical and frightening! You should think about writing the screenplay. I’m sure the Farley Brothers would love to direct it. If you add just the right blend of violence and irony, the Coen Brothers would probably get on board as well.
In fact, I just read your post from a few days ago (remember, I’m new to your blog and I was supposed to be out in blogworld finding templates for the launch of my own blog!). It’s the post titled “The Result of Rhetoric: Fear and Violence From The Far Right Wing.” If you take the imagery from that post and combine it with the imagery from this post, you’ve practically written the whole script!
As for giving McCain the benefit of the doubt for raising issues about spending on science related earmarks, I’m not as generous as you Tory.
McCain knows what’s going on here. And I would contend that raising science spending as an issue is calculated and deliberate. The bear reference does sound silly, but attacking the spending on it does mock science (as you point out), and the Planetarium involves our universe and questions of how our planet evolved. I honestly believe these references are calculated, deliberate, and that they have been orchestrated in order to incite those on the far right that are fearful of advancing progress in science which they see as an affront to their religious beliefs, and fearful of a candidate who is the exact opposite of them, i.e., well-read, articulate, cerebral, a deep thinker, Harvard law school educated, . . . need I say more? 
And now I need to get back to this template stuff . . .
Tori Deaux 10.11.08 at 3:23 pm
I do so love the screen play idea…. hmmm… I shall have to think about this!
I do tend to be overly generous. It’s my way of not becoming too cynical and bitter. Realistically, I see some very disturbing patterns in the class warfare anti-intellectual business, and I’m not sure how the upper-class Republicans intend to hang onto their loot if this country loses any more ground in science education. But I have to live in denial of it most of the time or my head will explode.
So did you decide on a template?