What interests me is that there must be a nest of the same mentality at NPR, which has been giving the trials and tribulations of poor "Spirit" almost as much attention as they have the presidential campaign (if you subtract the chats about the Scream). I guess they are folks who shared the romance of space, but flunked calculus, so they couldn't become actual scientists, and turned into fans instead (cf. "athletes" vs. "athletic supporters").
Meanwhile, here on earth, children are going hungry, the globe is heating up, etc., etc. But that stuff isn't romantic. I heard the other day (I think on space-drunk NPR) someone saying, on the issue of space exploring vs. feeding kids, etc., something on the order of "Missions to Mars, etc., are inspiring!" Something is very wrong when we can't get inspired about building a better society for humanity, IMHO.
But this morning they ran a commentary by an economics prof. who admitted he was inspired by this space stuff, but didn't think it was fair for everyone to pay, through taxes, for his particular enthusiasms. So they are trying to be balanced.
(PS. I'm a Star Trek fan, and I didn't flunk calculus. PPS: Star Trek, of course, was initiated by Gene Roddenberry, who was one of the most progressive-minded creative individuals to get anywhere in mainstream US TV.)
On Sunday, January 25, 2004, at 03:21 PM, Carl Remick quoted:
> With each new image from Opportunity beamed back to Earth came more
> oohs and aahs. Dr. Steve Squyres, the principal scientist, said, "I
> will attempt no science analysis, because it looks like nothing I’ve
> ever seen before. I’ve got no words for this."
>
> Another new, indescribable vista brought more amazement. "Holy
> smokes," Dr. Squyres said. "I’m just blown away by this."
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Belinda: Ay, but you know we must return good for evil. Lady Brute: That may be a mistake in the translation.
-- Sir John Vanbrugh: The Provok’d Wife (1697), I.i.