In the debate, McCain portrayed Barack Obama as an excessive spender, and he punctuated his attack (twice) with this example:


"[Obama] voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"

Turns out, a lot of people think we do. This is no ordinary overhead projector from your 5th grade classroom. The blog Cosmic Variance sums it up:


"If you've ever had the pleasure of visiting the Adler Planetarium, you'd probably guess that the 'overhead projector' he's talking about is the spectacular 'Sky Theater' -- one of the most engrossing, gorgeous venues for displaying visuals about space."

The science community is notoriously tight-knit, especially when rallying to a cause, and boy are they are rallying to this one. Alan Boyle's Cosmic Log has a great summary of the uproar:

-"For McCain to use this as a political zinger is insulting..." (Bad Astronomy)

-"Planetariums are Bridges to the Future, and America would be a much better place if all the congressional earmarks went to projects like them." (The Perfect Silence)

-"The logo for Senator John McCain's campaign has a star in the middle. I wonder what his guide star is? It can't be the same one that ten million children have seen at the Adler Planetarium. Why should anyone want their star to dim?" (Discovery Space)

-"Planetariums are Bridges to the Future, and America would be a much better place if all the congressional earmarks went to projects like them." (The Perfect Silence

If by Bridges to the Future he means places to go drop acid and watch light shows to Pink Floyd'd Dark Side of the Moon, then yes, I have to agree with him.

I dunno if you are being sarcastic or not...

But if you are being serious: Are you trying to insult planetariums? Is that what I'm reading?

Well seeing I grew up in the 70's and that's all we used planteriums for, yes I'm bagging on planetariums. But go ahead and tell me how they've changed and how important they are at explaining the heavens to five year olds.

Never been in one...I looked at the sky, myself.


Seriously...is this something worth spending federal money on?

hang on I'm on the phone

Seriously...is this something worth spending federal money on?

Seriously...is this something worth spending federal money on?

Multi task.

Man now what are we doing? I'm no planetarium expert. It just seems funny to make fun of them. Are they not mainstays of space research? Analyzing telescope images and you know.. examining sunspots and looking for asteroids and all of that jazz. Correct me if I'm wrong but the tourist ceiling with stars on it is just fund raising so the planetariums are not all public money.

Just please tell me we're not going to turn planetariums into some bastards libs vs dems vs fox news vs McObama brainless fart argument.

Man now what are we doing? I'm no planetarium expert. It just seems funny to make fun of them. Are they not mainstays of space research? Analyzing telescope images and you know.. examining sunspots and looking for asteroids and all of that jazz. Correct me if I'm wrong but the tourist ceiling with stars on it is just fund raising so the planetariums are not all public money.

Just please tell me we're not going to turn planetariums into some bastards libs vs dems vs fox news vs McObama brainless fart argument.

No, they are NOT mainstays of space research. Maybe you're thinking of observatories.

Off the top of my head, although I can think of several research institutions that have planetariums, I can't think of a single planetarium that's used for any research.

No, they are NOT mainstays of space research. Maybe you're thinking of observatories.

Off the top of my head, although I can think of several research institutions that have planetariums, I can't think of a single planetarium that's used for any research.

Why not have Obama's and Ayer's old stomping grounds, the Annenberg Inititive fund it. Oh, they didn't fund any science or math education programs, just left wing social programs.

Oh well then a planetarium is no better than a zoo. Which I bet are also great places to drop acid and listen to pink floyd.

Just so you know what McCain was referring to....

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/exhibits/skytheater.shtml

No zoos are great places to take put wild animals after you've taken them out of their wild and natural habitat.

Whoa, did I just sound like a tree hugging liberal there?

Every time you post meaningless drivel that you got from Rush or Hannity (congrats on expanding your horizons to include Hannity), I reconsider voting for a 3ed party and vote for Obama instead. Hopefully my sanity will prevail, but keep inspiring the Obama types with the absolute worst takes on things. Mind you you, Rush is good at what he does. He even occasionally skewers the dems. Hannity on the other hand is a wannabe with a big audience. What does that say about the audience?

Name a science or math program they financed.

Planetarium's would most-likely fall under science education. People suggesting that it's the same as sticking your head out the window are wrong. Anyone living near an urban area will tell you that you'll never see the night sky the same near a city as it will look out in the country. The planetarium here in Boston is usually packed with students on school outings. Not sure why anyone would be against funding education, especially science education, considering how far behind we are falling as a nation in that subject. Why the hell would we ever want to inspire grade-school inner city kids?

I don't think anyone is arguing against school funding. I think it's an issue of federal money.

Why would anyone be against federal money being used for education?

Naw the tree huggers have moved on to: There are no more natural habitats left for animals because we humans have invaded their lands and polluted thier water and air and changed the temperature of their atmosphere.

I kind of agree with that sentiment.

In my mind that's not what the federal government is for. It's a state issue.

Why would anyone be against federal money being used for education?

Not totally sure about that... since DDT and PCBs were removed wildlife had moved back into the Western MA area. Turkey's roam in packs of 100

In this instance - it is a waste. There are enough wealthy people connected to the Chicago area that raising $3M - if it were such a good cause - would be nothing. Oprah's rainbow-farting unicorn sleeps on $3M every night, with fresh bills laid out for it the next morning.

Between Obama, Oprah, Jordon, all the professional sports teams, and the rest of businesses etc... there is no reason why a city the size of Chicago needs federal money for a science building. It's not a bridge. It's not a highway. It's a planetarium that I have no doubt could have been paid for by the generosity of private citizens.

In my mind education should be a federal, not a state issue.

I completely disagree. When was the last time a city asked for the money from a charity to fix a bridge or fill potholes? We have to start thinking about education in this country as if it were a vital part of the nation's infrastructure. If we would rather spend $3 million on a bridge than to upgrade the 40-year-old projector in the oldest planetarium in the Western Hemisphere (and a registered Historical Landmark), then this country really needs to take a long hard look at it's priorities. The number of students that would benefit from that $3 million over the next 40 years can't be factored into the cost.

Why should my money go to edumicate the people of Boston. I say keep 'em dumb.

Its in Chicago, dude. But I'll agree with you, keep them dumb in Boston.

Why would anyone be against federal money being used for education?

I completely disagree. When was the last time a city asked for the money from a charity to fix a bridge or fill potholes? We have to start thinking about education in this country as if it were a vital part of the nation's infrastructure. If we would rather spend $3 million on a bridge than to upgrade the 40-year-old projector in the oldest planetarium in the Western Hemisphere (and a registered Historical Landmark), then this country really needs to take a long hard look at it's priorities. The number of students that would benefit from that $3 million over the next 40 years can't be factored into the cost.

Its in Chicago, dude. But I'll agree with you, keep them dumb in Boston.

Johnny's in Boston and I know he just loves those Bostonians.

Go Red Sox!

Its a sad day when we're arguing against science education. Going off what Johnny said, the Tally planetarium and challenger learning center is packed during the week with school groups from up to a few hours away. $3 million is chump change when it comes to science education for kids. Bitching about $3 mil for a planetarium is being penny wise and pound foolish.

And that's beside the point that I dispute the educational value of planetariums. Always have, always will.

And $200M in tax breaks for rum producers, and $2M for arrow manufacturers...It's all "penny-wise and pound-foolish", until you add it up.


And that's beside the point that I dispute the educational value of planetariums. Always have, always will.

I completely disagree. When was the last time a city asked for the money from a charity to fix a bridge or fill potholes? We have to start thinking about education in this country as if it were a vital part of the nation's infrastructure. If we would rather spend $3 million on a bridge than to upgrade the 40-year-old projector in the oldest planetarium in the Western Hemisphere (and a registered Historical Landmark), then this country really needs to take a long hard look at it's priorities. The number of students that would benefit from that $3 million over the next 40 years can't be factored into the cost.

What does Barack have to do with rum or wooden arrows?

are you saying that you disagree with the notion that this could have been financed by the private sector or that we shouldn't even bother because it is now considered "infractructure"?

Dude, if it is the latter - that is retarded. Use $3M of public funding - that only exists because we finance it with foreign loans - or just have wealthy philanthropists pay for it? Wow, tough decision there.

If the place is that worthwhile and that popular - financing it in the private sector is a no-brainer. How that is even arguable is beyond me.