Category Archives: Planetarium

astronomy, mcain, overhead projector, Planetarium, Planetarium-related, politics, politics and science

An Interesting Use of Facts

1 Comment

The Planetarium Projector Funds Never Got Out of Committee

As reported on Politifact, the funding that Mr. McCain says Mr. Obama voted for to help Adler to get a 40-year-old projection system replaced (NOT an overhead projector) was never allowed past the Senate Appropriations Committee. Mr. Obama did request the earmark, as was his right as a Senator (and Mr. McCain has requested quite a bit of money over the years, too).

So, Mr. McCain’s question, “do we need to spend that kind of money” is more rhetorical and just kinda glosses over the fact that the money was asked for but that appropriation request didn’t pass.  Kinda disingenuous of Mr. McCain to overlook that last part, you betcha. By golly.

The sad thing is that these facts could have been gleaned by Mr. McCain’s prep team if they’d bother to read the Congressional Record (paid for and made available by taxpayer dollars).  But they didn’t. So, the debate tactic of calling his opponent out on funding for a planetarium system that will benefit millions is an interesting one-sided use of facts and inferences, ignores an important point, and really just is a foul shot.

Once again it’s fair to ask: if Mr. McCain’s handlers got this one wrong, what else are they getting wrong?

Thanks to Mark for digging up the Politifact link.

UPDATE:

Here’s a statement from Adler Planetarium

STATEMENT ABOUT SENATOR JOHN McCAIN’S

COMMENTS AT THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Last night, during the presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Senator John McCain made the following statement:

McCain: “While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he (Senator Obama) voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?”

To clarify, the Adler Planetarium requested federal support – which was not funded – to replace the projector in its historic Sky Theater, the first planetarium theater in the Western Hemisphere. The Adler’s Zeiss Mark VI projector – not an overhead projector – is the instrument that re-creates the night sky in a dome theater, the quintessential planetarium experience. The Adler’s projector is nearly 40 years old and is no longer supported with parts or service by the manufacturer. It is only the second planetarium projector in the Adler’s 78 years of operation.

Science literacy is an urgent issue in the United States. To remain competitive and ensure national security, it is vital that we educate and inspire the next generation of explorers to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.

Senator McCain’s statements about the Adler Planetarium’s request for federal support do not accurately reflect the museum’s legislative history or relationship with Senator Obama. The Adler has approached the Illinois Congressional delegation the last few years for federal assistance with various initiatives. These have included museum exhibitions, equipment and educational programs we offer to area schools, including the Chicago Public Schools. We have made requests to Senators Durbin and Obama, as well as to 6 area Congressmen from both political parties. We are grateful that all of the Members we have approached, including Senator Obama, have deemed our activities worthy of their support, and have made appropriations requests on our behalf, as they have for many worthy Illinois nonprofit organizations.

As a result of the hard work of our bipartisan congressional delegation, the Adler has been fortunate to receive a few federal appropriations the past couple of years. However, the Adler has never received an earmark as a result of Senator Obama’s efforts. This is clearly evidenced by recent transparency laws implemented by the Congress, which have resulted in the names of all requesting Members being listed next to every earmark in the reports that accompany appropriations bills.

*****

Update 2: Here’s a link to a great article by my friend Jim Sweitzer — he writes about the Adler from his POV as someone who spent a long time working at Adler as an astrophysicist and now advises other facilities. Welcome to the fray, Jim!

Update 3:  A friend just pointed me to this great discussion at DailyKos (some comments are a bit salty).

(CCP here again —  U.S. citizens — have you registered to vote?)

astronomy, Planetarium, planetary science, politics

Planetariums Foolish? Not so Much…

Leave a comment

It’s a Place of Science Learning, John, Not Uninformed Posturing

So, last week there was a kerfuffle, as they like to say, over a U.S. presidential candidate’s using planetarium funding as a weapon against his opponent. It was silly and, in my opinion, made the guy who complained about the funding look pretty foolish and ignorant (and, as Phil Plait suspected, anti-science). I suppose you could conclude that the candidate hates science education, but I suspect in reality, he had no clue of what he was talking about and just grabbed the first thing he could think of to throw back in his opponent’s face. It backfired, as it should have. Sensible teachers routinely flunk students who wing it like that, particularly in science where there’s little tolerance for making up facts to suit an argument. There’s no reason we should put up with a candidate for president of the U.S. who doesn’t do his homework.

I don’t want to get into the various specifics of the argument, mostly because we already hashed it out over at Phil’s Bad Astronomy Blog. I’d rather talk about what good planetariums are.

I’ve been involved in planetarium show production for a long time, both as a lecturer and as a content creator. To me, a planetarium is a great gateway into the world of science. Astronomy itself is a great entry into other sciences. Point yourself in any direction in the sky and the list of sciences you can use to explain what you see is a long one:  physics, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, atmospheric science, planetary science, geology… just to name a few. And, the beauty of a planetarium is that you can teach all that stuff on the dome, simply by looking at stars, planets, and galaxies.

Sure, you might not end up in astronomy as a career, but a number of scientists cite their first visit to a planetarium as something that got them started in science. In fact, it goes beyond scientists — I recently read about an environmental lawyer who fertilized his interest in science by lecturing at his local planetarium. I guarantee you that a good planetarium production will ignite your interest in astronomy, an interest you can take with you wherever you go.

I remember MY first visit to one when I was in 7th grade. I couldn’t believe such a cool place existed. It took a few years before I got back to one, and even a bit longer before I got into creating shows for such places. I spent some time just before graduate school lecturing in one, sometimes several times a day. It never failed to amaze me how cool the visitors thought the experience was. Oh sure, there were always a few slouches who came in and tried to be disruptive. But, for the most part, the visitors were thrilled to be there and learn something about astronomy.

In the U.S., we need more and better science education — it leads to critical thinking and better-informed citizens, methinks (which, come to think of it, might scare a certain subset of politicians (and others) who thrive on having ignorant voters…)

If a planetarium can help spur kids into studying science and having fun with it, it ADDS to taxpayer literacy in our country, and money spent on education (if done wisely) can come back to us in the form of better educated teachers, more scientists, and involved, engaged citizens. So, I kind of have to wonder: what’s so bad about that?  And, why is attacking a planetarium’s funding (which was a very small amount of money compared to the money that the attacker has wasted or misspent through his actions over the decades as a senator, and certainly is well below the amount he has sunk into all his seven or eight homes) somehow a sign of political virtue?  Especially since there are bigger budgetary oxen to be gored. I just don’t see how huffing and puffing about a planetarium is anything but a nonstarter, unless the candidate is a supporter of decreasing science literacy for all of us.