Posts Made By: James Brown

Hi Jess:

Robertson is an evil, stupid man. Why do you take the effort to even acknowledge, much less pass on what he has to say?

Regarding this part: "Yesterday I read on the science feeds that a study had shown that conservatives were far more likely to blame victims for their woes, especially if they had racist biases."

I'm a conservative, and I would agree, with one huge and all-important caveat.

Conservatives are much more likely to blame the victim of poverty, a failed marriage, a crummy career etc. for their woes. Obviously this is consistent with a conservative's value of independence and self-reliance. Liberals on the other hand will tend to blame the system or outside causation for matters (like poverty or a failed marriage) that a conservative would tend to think are within the realm of self-rectifiable woes.

You hardly need a scientist to tell you that!

Only morons like Robertson will blame the victims for the suffering caused by an external tragedy like this quake or Katrina. Most conservatives, including the churchy type you despise, will skip the blame game and just make donations to the relief effort.

Jim

Rod:

A Palin run would be catastrophic. We need a genuine uniter. A Reagan or a Clinton for instance (Bill that is).

Do you remember this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=18

If the Rs run a charismatic, competent, social moderate, fiscal conservative you may see it again.

Jim

Very nice!

Jim

Tony Aguire said:


Why Americans should not all have equal access to healthcare


the key word here is "equal"

I have a gold plated health plan, no deductibles, no co-pay, prescriptions free, eye care...free, dental...free. I pay $40 a month for health care for me and my wife.

my neighbor has no health insurance. When his child got the flu, my neighbor got a bill to pay...this is not equal.

Why should I get any different treatment even though myself and my next door neighbor are Americans?

I would like to hear why some of y'all think I should get treated better than my neighbor...

Why should he get a bill, why should I be able to walk into a clinic/emergency room/doctor present a card, get my care and walk out knowing I will only pay 40 dollars next month?

Hi Tony:

Before I jump in with a lengthy philosophical reply, I'm dying to know how you acquired such a phenomenal insurance plan.

Jim

Paul Kammueller said:

In yet another 5-4 decision, the activist court has decided it's time to privatize government. Now Exxon or whoever the biggest most moneyed corporation (or maybe domestic subsidiary of a Chinese corporation 8O ) is will be able to buy up all the airtime for whatever elections/districts they need to go their way.

I find it unnerving the court's notion that a corporation or association has the same constitutional rights as a human being. I would think our inalienable rights would be reserved for humans. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned. But to me a corporation (or association or labor union or whatever) is basically a machine, not a person. A corporation is a tool for accomplishing things. It is not a person with an emotional need for civil liberties or human rights. This is like giving rights to a refigerator or a toaster or something. So, having gone this far, do we start letting corporations have votes in the next elections as well?

Paul:

When did you get so fond of hyperbole? Corporations are groups of individuals with a common purpose. The same as trade unions. The same as the obnoxious PACs and 527s that have sprung up since McCain-Feingold.

Political free speech is hugely important and should not be restricted. For example, if a bunch of teachers want to finance a political advertisement, I am sure that you will agree the members should have the right to pool their funds and buy the ad through their own union. McCain-Feingold said "no" to this.

Of course no one really expected individual teachers to buy air time, and no one expected these teachers to remain politically mute. So under McCain Feingold, the union just set up a PAC or 527 Group to buy the ad. Nothing practical will change.

Groups with shared interests like corporations and unions will still buy ads to sway elections. So what is the big deal if they don't have to go throught the motions of setting up a PAC or 527 group to do it?

Jim

Kudos to Tony and Paul for starting a couple of really interesting philosophical/political threads. I could spend the weekend arguing these issues, but alas, work calls for the next several hours and after that it is family time.

The issues raised in this Supreme Court case are infinitely more complex that the Huffington Post will lead you to believe. For those who care, here are links to all of the briefs and the opinion.

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Contrary to what you might read, these decisions are not made quickly or for political expedience.

Justice Kennedy, the author of this opinion is a moderate by the way. The dissents are always good too.

Have a great weekend!

Jim

Hi Itz:

That's good news about your lens. I don't know what size bearing you need, but if you can figure that out I bet you can find a replacement on line at MSC Industrial Supply or McMaster Carr. Both places will sell single bearings and have a wide assortment of styles and sizes, including metric, which you'll probably need.

http://www1.mscdirect.com/industrial-equipment.html

http://www.mcmaster.com

Good luck!

Jim

Alex McConahay said:

So, I'm thinking of doing some narrow band imaging with my ST-7.

Step 1 is to get some narrow band filters.

I see one level is like the Orion at 7 nm bandpass, another is Astrodon at 5 nm, and a third at 3 nm bandpass. I know what that would mean optically, but what does it mean practically?

I mean, I'm sitting in my light polluted back yard. If it is going to cost me $900 or $1000 or more to get into narrow band imaging, I wonder if I want to go there. If it is only going to cost $350, sure, its worth a try. If I spend the $350 how close will I be to what I would have gotten with the $900? How long before I decide that I need to get the $900 to "do it right?" Will I be getting haloes, and lots of IR light leak, and parfocal problems, and whatever?

I have the pier mounted Gemini G-11, an off axis guider, ST-7, CFW, and whatever tube is needed to pull this off, I should think. It's just the filters I don't yet have. I don't want to get "entry level" and then find out they don't make it at all and have to spend more. On the other hand, I mean, I'm working an ST-7 here. I'm obviously not into premium performance--just want to take some pretty pictures.

Alex

Hi Alex:

With an ST-7 you use 1.25" filters right? Assuming that is correct, If I were you I would either get the Baader 1.25" Ha at $164.00, or if I was living large I'd get the 1.25" Baader Ha, OIII, SII narrow band set for $395.00.

The price for the Baaders is great. Lots of folks on the web speak very highly of the quality. I have a set of the 2" Baaders and they perform well.

Certainly, I have not personally A/B compared lots of narrow band filters. I have compared the Baader Ha to a 5nm Astrodon with my own system, and I can not see any difference.

Jim

Score one for Alito. Only legal wonks will recognize this, and even I will say that it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but Obama told a calculated lie last night. What he said is this:

"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The "floodgates" and "special interests" is not the lie, that just typical us-against-them populist hyperbole. But the century of law bit is an untruth. Obama with his background knows that this is a lie, but it is one he thinks he can pass off, since he as a politician poses as one of “us”, not one of “them”. (As an aside, we are all part of "special interests" no?).

In any case, the Court's opinion in the Citizens United case did not touch the century old law that prohibits direct corporate campaign contributions. That law is still on the books. The complex McCain-Feingold rules regarding political advertising that the Court ruled unconstitutional are of much more recent vintage.

Obama's fib is of course designed to make the Court out to be activists that poop on 100 years of settled jurisprudence. Oh well, it was probably an effective lie for 99.9% of the audience.

Jim

Beautiful work Dean, thanks for posting those.

Jim