Scientists respond to McCain's $3 million "overhead projector" remark

[bascule]

From the debates:

 

[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?

 

$3 million? Can't spend that kind of money, that's PORK! But another $300 billion bailout, some 5 orders of magnitude larger, is just fine!

 

Anyway, $3 million "overhead projector" eh? Well... the scientists have responded:

 

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.

 

Here's a fun comparison of an actual overhead projector to the Alder Planetarium's Zeiss Mark VI star projector::

 

 

Article here:

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1209674,adlerweb100908.article

 

Here's the official statement released from the Alder Planetarium about McCain's remarks:

 

http://www.adlerplanetarium.org/pressroom/pr/2008_10_08_AdlerStatement_aboutdebate.pdf

 

courtesy BadAstronomy

[mooeypoo]

Here's a very good response by Phil Plait (BadAstronomy): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/mccains-planetariophobia/

[john5746]

The article suggests McCain knows better and is trying to deceive. I am wondering if he really appreciates the technology involved. I'm sure SOMEONE in his campaign knows the difference, but I doubt he does.

[mooeypoo]

He shouldn't say things if he doesn't know, then... It's not like he made claims that are vaguely mistaken, he accused Obama with a blatant lie.... I don't think he thought of claiming that on his own if he has no clue about the technology, so someone in his staff is feeding him the wrong information.

 

In any case it will most definitely hint on his future plans for science and research, wouldn't you say?

[ecoli]

I never understood McCain's anti-earmark stance. It's hypocritical to the rest of his platform. Plus, earmarking this type of money is not necessarily a bad thing. Earmarks are money that's already in the budget but congressman can lobby about how its going to get spent. So, for example, if we have certain amount to spend on education and astronomy, spending $3 mil on a planetarium seems like a good way to go.

 

Obviously the pork spending can get out of hand (like all the pork that was pushed through with the bailout bill). But, I think of earmarks like a tax credit to the people that the project will benefit. Of course, if it doesn't benefit anyone, it shouldn't be approved but I think there are certain public works projects that the federal government can intelligently fund.

 

McCain's position should be against that, but he just treats all earmarks equally to get some good soundbites for the press and claim it as "his issue."

[john5746]

In any case it will most definitely hint on his future plans for science and research, wouldn't you say?

 

Oh, I agree. I actually think its worse that he is that stupid. I know any President will have to be deceptive, but they don't have to be stupid.

[Realitycheck]

Since when was the government supposed to be responsible for movie projectors? Disease research, space exploration, scientific endeavors, yay, but movie projectors? 3 million dollar movie projectors? I can't believe I am actually seeing this conversation. The museum is supposed to finance the movie projector from its benefactors, or it doesn't get done. Movie projectors!

[bascule]

Since when was the government supposed to be responsible for movie projectors?

 

If it's any consolation they didn't get the $3 million to replace the projector

[Pangloss]

I missed this in the debate somehow. This is really unfortunate to hear. I can understand if we're going to stop using earmarks -- fine, make them put it in clearly marked, purposeful legislation aimed at improving science education instead of an "earmark" slipped into somebody's bill just to get their vote -- I'm cool with that. But to call it an "overhead projector" just for political gain, that is absolutely insulting to me.

 

Those things aren't just a pinnacle of engineering and a landmark of science education -- they are an absolute work of art. I can't even begin to communicate how much they inspired my own interest in science. I can relate one story, though. When I was in high school I had an opportunity of a lifetime for a nerdy kid in the pre-computer era -- the chance to be an unpaid volunteer at Fernbank Planetarium in Atlanta. I actually got to run the Mark V -- my god, I was literally in heaven.

 

Years later the digital planetariums started to replace the old optical ones. They drew a lot of attention because of the ability to change star locations and other cool effects. But the image quality was nowhere NEAR that of the great Zeiss machines. I've no idea what the situation is today; haven't been in a planetarium in years. But that is really unfortunate to hear.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

I missed this in the debate somehow. This is really unfortunate to hear. I can understand if we're going to stop using earmarks -- fine, make them put it in clearly marked, purposeful legislation aimed at improving science education instead of an "earmark" slipped into somebody's bill just to get their vote -- I'm cool with that. But to call it an "overhead projector" just for political gain, that is absolutely insulting to me.

If it makes you feel any better, he's made this comment multiple times out on the stump. It's not a "debate specific" thing, nor a gaff... This is one of his talking points... Much like his comment about studying bear genetics in Montana and the money sent to help with that... McCAIN: "I'm not sure if this is a civil issue or a paternal one, but we need to stop these pork barrel projects blah blah blah."

 

 

One source among many for the bear thing --> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/mccain-bear-problem.php

[John Cuthber]

Is there a difference between McCain calling it an overhead projector for political reasons and Agentchange calling it a movie projector?

[iNow]

Both are ignorant misrepresentations trying to sway opinion with semantic spin, but one is doing it to appeal to an electorate and another is doing it because he thinks it's funny and will get a cheap laugh.

 

That's my guess, anyway.

[Pangloss]

I would agree with that.