And so of course Ashley is going to lecture all of us about Science.
Hmmmmm ..?? Maybe he asked for that assignment .. in order to learn what he doesn’t know about NASA or space science in general (even though his state is very involved in space). He’s a very intelligent person .. and I rather believe he’s playing CHESS while the rest of them are playing paper dolls.
I’ve personally never heard Ted Cruz utter an unkind word about NASA or science in general. So, this subject just may not have interested him - and he was involved with other pursuits .. and since there is so much activity taking place with NASA and space science .. it just might afford him the opportunity to be on TV a lot ..?? While .. it also gives him on-the-job information about what’s going on in space exploration.
People are so short-sited .. they never look beyond the end of their nose.
Regarding Cruz and NASA, please consider the following side note.
I enjoyed following NASA on TV when growing up. But it remains that NASA, like so many other federal spending programs, was established outside the framework of the Constitution, the states never amending the Constitution to authorize the feds to tax and spend for space exploration purposes.
So until patriots who want to see NASA continue its mission wise up to what’s going on and work with state and federal lawmakers to successfully propose a NASA amendment to the Constitution, it’s best to let NASA remain mothballed, imo, to comply with the constitutionally limited federal government that the Founding States had intended.
In fact, consider that Obama’s mothbolling of NASA was actually the right thing to do under the Constitution.
With all the worldwide emphasis on "freedom" today, is such skepticism a bad thing, or might it be that Cruz's "skepticism" is directed toward coercive government, now science?
Hear Thomas Jefferson:
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.Sounds like Jefferson's concern about "fallible" human beings, organized into powerful political groups, with "private as well as public reasons" for using "coercion" to force other human beings into uniformity of opinion is a concern which is both legitimate and in keeping with the idea of liberty."Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principles of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter." - Thomas Jefferson
That legitimate concern is of special note when one considers the billions of dollars of wage earner dollars which are confiscated by those "fallible" persons who exhibit "bad passions" when challenged on their unyielding policy positions which impact the lives of their fellow citizens.
And I suppose the progressives still think tasking NASA with outreaches to Muslims was not an abuse of the agency. Just think of all the martian cartoonist NASA could have helped the Muslims kill.
Ashley Alman’s background is in blogging, journalism, political science, and community organizating.
No background in science.
Big fan of “narrative nonfiction” though.
You know, a blowhard!
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/02/04/duke-undergrad-yt-finalist-ashley-alman-touts-diverse-campus-experiences#.VLQW-tm9LTo
What was Ashley’s opinion when Obama made the nummber one priority of NASA is to make muslims feel good about themselves?
I don’t even have to read the article to know that the author’s definition of “anti-science” is “anti-dissecting-and-experimenting-on-babies.”