. . . . .

To help space station crewmembers stay involved with their local politics, NASA has made arrangements with county officials that allow astronauts to vote from space. The ballots are prepared by county officials and beamed up from Mission Control.

. . . . .

Once the astronauts vote, the ballots are then beamed back to Mission Control and delivered to their respective county clerk’s office.

Voting From Space: American Astronauts Cast Ballots In Orbit [Space.com]

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Take 15 minutes and read the entire speech here.

Aliens Cause Global Warming [MichaelCrichton.com]

National Pi Day? Congress makes it official [CNET]

President Obama signed an order on Wednesday proclaiming that the entire federal government should be more open, transparent, and Internet-friendly. It said that agencies must “put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public.”

As someone who gets most of my information off the internet, I applaude this move.

Obama Hater: I don’t like Barak Obama.

Me: Why?

Obama Hater: He’s a socialist.

Me: What’s socialism? (I ask this because I usually think the person really doesn’t know)

Obama Hater: Redistribution of wealth. (If they have an answer, this is it)

Me: What’s wrong with that?

I’ve had this conversation multiple times in the last 6 months, and I’ve never gotten a real answer to my last question, just cries of “Are you serious?” or “You’ve got to be kidding!” save for once, when the person had a legitimate well thought-out response.

I don’t think Barak Obama is a socialist, and I’m not arguing for a socialist government (although I’m sure some will miss that point) but I do think we should put more thought into the subject than the rhetoric I hear every time I have this conversation.

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
socialism
noun [U]
the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs

Acts 2:44 All the Lord’s followers often met together, and they shared everything they had. 45 They would sell their property and possessions and give the money to whoever needed it.

Acts 4:32 The group of followers all felt the same way about everything. None of them claimed that their possessions were their own, and they shared everything they had with each other. 33 In a powerful way the apostles told everyone that the Lord Jesus was now alive. God greatly blessed his followers, 34 and no one went in need of anything. Everyone who owned land or houses would sell them and bring the money 35 to the apostles. Then they would give the money to anyone who needed it.