I think there’s a difference in creating drama and correcting facts.  Sometimes correcting factually inaccurate information is mistaken for creating drama, but I still feel the need to correct the misinformation anyways.  I think the truth is usually more important. 

That being said, I think I’ll post my comments here, though, instead of directly on the website in question, since as I understand it, said webmaster would rather not hear from me for now.  

I read recently that Obama just announced he’s going to pull funding from NASA to fund his education plan.  This was said to be good timing, as the primaries for the states with NASA centers has already passed.  I have also been told by several people that I should vote for Clinton, as she will not pull funding from NASA.  

So, here’s the corrections that I feel the need to make:   1)  Obama said this months and months ago.  2)  a vote for Hillary will still make me lose my job.  

Now for references:

1)  "Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.." — [Obama's] Official Education Plan, 20 November 2007

- Note the date, there.   Long before even the first primary election.  He’s been saying this for a while now. 

But I guess that’s really less important since I think we all now understand that a vote for Obama is a vote for a lost job at NASA.   But what about Hillary? 

2)  "But in a telephone interview afterward, she said that in the short term she would subordinate Bush administration proposals for human exploration of the Moon and Mars to restoring cuts in aeronautics research and space-based studies of climate change and other earth science issues.  Travel to the Moon or Mars ‘excites people,’ she said, ‘but I am more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable.’"

– The New York Times, 5 October 2007

- So, a vote for Hillary doesn’t mean lost funding for NASA, but it does mean that those of us who work in human space flight will either have to quickly become experts in global warming research, or we’ll be out of a job.  So, any democratic vote is a vote for a lost job here at JSC, anyway. 

I will say that Hillary was quoted on a space website:  "Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue ‘a successful and speedy transition’ from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to ‘a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.’”

However, that’s in direct contrast to her interview with the New York Times…   which either makes her fickle or hypocritical.  Being a politician, I’m apt to believe that second one, there.  Especially considering that second quote for the Space News website, as compared to the New York Times, which is for everyone.

Also, Mr. Clinton cut NASA’s budget significantly while he was in office.   I wonder if it runs in the family…  

Unfortunately, I can’t bash McCain on this issue, because he has avoided discussing NASA in any official interviews, or at least those that I can find on the internet or www.spacepolitics.com. 

C ig.oo yday yflcbi rb a ‘,.pyf t.fxrape ,dcn. Y.nncbi frgp jrmlgy.p cy-o a ekrpat t.fxrape lpregj.o a lp.yyf bcuyf jpflyripamw dgdZ

Not much to say.  I mean, I’ve had plenty to say, but nothing I remembered when I was near a computer.  Work is going well, and I’m starting to get into sims.  It’s fun.  It’s evil.  Almost too evil.  Put in a case the sim before last that my mentor couldn’t remember anyone ever doing before.  I gave the controller a false fire followed by a false fire.  On their final sims, we’ll occasionally give them a false fire followed by a real fire, and sure enough, when I put in the second false fire, the controller took it and ran, hook, line, and sinker.  There were literally two big yellow messages on the board (the display in front of the control room) that said the fire was false, but the controller never even saw them.  He saw the word "FIRE" and was off…  Went down that path for about 10 minutes until the Flight Director finally said to him "hey, ECLSS, what are those messages there on the board below the fire message?"   I felt bad for him…  but he screwed up. 

I’m not mean without purpose, though.  I set out to really stress the two controllers I’m responsible for, and see how they did.  I think it was a very valuable lesson…  it said, hey, you’re not ready, yet…   it also said, hey, stop anticipating the failures in sims…  

Speaking of teaching, got to teach some high schoolers in a design competition last weekend.  It was fun, in that I got to pretty much run the session, and teach some interesting stuff to some kids…  But the kids get so caught up in their competitions that after the session, even though I stayed around for about four hours extra, I was only asked about three questions.  The kids would rather trust to their own ideas and run with it…   well, good luck to them, I guess.  That’s what they’re there for.  Got the international finals of that competition coming up in July…  I’ll probably go back for that. 

And speaking of the near future…  my calendar has suddenly been filled up with vacations.  Going to denver this weekend to help someone move.  Going to new york with deedee in april for a conference.  Going on a cruise in early May.  Going to a wedding in late May.  Going to theme parks with friends in June (probably).  And I’d like to take a trip up to Seattle, maybe in August.  I’ll be amazed if I have any vacation left by Christmas.   

Oh, and my boss screwed up my paperwork and my promotion has been delayed 6 months.  This annoys me greatly and on many levels, but is not really worth dwelling on since there is absolutely nothing I can do. 

Anyway, it’s 8am, and I think I’m headed home.  Been working since 10pm yesterday, and on one hour sleep. 

Quote of the Day:

(shuttle "ECLSS" to ISS ECLSS, as the shuttle crew entered ISS for the first time)
"ECLSS, EECOM on Ops:  My CO2 generators are on station now."

I guess you shouldn’t blog when you’re upset. but, I’m not in the habit of deleting entries. These are my thoughts.

I originally wrote a several page entry here, but found it was too directed, and that’s not what I like to write here. so instead, here’s some excerpts that were pulled from that…

—

I have tried to explain this concept of jokes-not-being-jokes-because-they’re-serious a couple of times lately. Maybe I’m not explaining it well enough. But, if I ask you something, all joking aside, in all seriousness, during a serious conversation, and you give me an answer, then I will assume that is what you believe. From that point on, any “jokes” on the subject aren’t really jokes. They’re you just expressing your opinion.

If you take this, and apply it to something that someone is particular sensitive about, or offended by, and you know this, then how are they supposed to interpret that? Example, if I said that in all seriousness, I think you’re stupid, then from that point on, any jokes about me calling you dumb aren’t jokes, are they? You would probably interpret them as thinly veiled insults, or attemps for me to remind you that I think I’m smarter than you.

—-

Maybe I’m hypersenstive to certain statements… but they do seem to keep coming up… Then again, maybe the reason why I get so annoyed lately is I’m just tired of defending myself. I’m constantly trying to explain my politics, religion, education, family beliefs, everything. And I don’t mind debating with people, but not when it’s like an attack. When you start off a debate with a statement like, there are two types of people in this world – intelligent people and religious people (example, not said like that), it’s an attack… you put someone on the defensive, even if you don’t realize it. And when I’m on the receiving end of that, I’m definitely off balance. But I go ahead and take the disadvantage, and argue my way out of the defensive, and when I finally make a good point, I get hit with, well, you’re just from mississippi. what do you do at that point? what do I do? I feel so frustrated.

I’ve stopped myself from several rants because of the thought that I might possibly offend someone.  Well, you know, I suddenly remembered that this is my corner of the internet, where I rant and get things out of my system.  If it offends you, then don’t read it.   Today’s rant is brought to you by the theory of evolution and the idea that someone from Mississippi couldn’t possibly understand science. 

Scientific zealots. 

Why not?  We have religious zealots.   People would accept that concept all day long and not even think twice.   How do we define a religious zealot?  A quick google search gives several definitions.  Like, someone who uses religion to show they’re better than everyone else…   we’ll come back to that.    Ultimately, if you say "religious zealot," we all have different things come to mind, and none of them are good.   People who refuse to listen to reason, and use their beliefs to condemn other people’s beliefs.  Elitists.  People who, when backed into a metaphorical corner will chose to lash out offensively at their opponent rather than question their own beliefs. 

Now, why can’t we say the exact same things about people who use science as their religion?  I mean, we can say the same thing about scientists who defend their work to the point of excluding reason.  They become so entrenched in their beliefs, and it’s so personal, that they refuse to even consider another point of view that is contrary to their own.  It’s happened… it’s the cause of several disasters over time…   engineers who refuse to let someone else crunch their numbers…  (and splat a multi-million dollar project on the face of mars).  Scientists who refuse to believe the possibility that they might possibly be reading data incorrectly… (and are discredited in front of millions of people when their theories easily test wrong). 

The truth is science can be as much of a religion as anything.  And so, it’s perfectly understandable that some people would want to go to any length to defend the theories that they personally believe in.  When it’s religion, we call these people zealots.  So, why can’t we have scientific zealots? 

Simple.  We can. 

I have more to say, but then I really would offend some people… 

so many things I want to say. and none that I actually will.