*beg

Double *beg

I sincerely appreciate your sober and intelligent criticism (on a subject that is all too often tainted by ignorance and name-calling, just look at the comments sections on YouTube for any video relating to Israel/Palestine). I think I may have just viewed the video in a different light. I viewed it in terms of Christian theology and the questions of peace and justice, two characteristics I find to be implicitly lacking in American Christian Zionism.

I do find Hart to be quite propagandistic, but I still feel as though Dr. Sizer's critiques are sound, and important. After (very recently, as in the last half hour) reading about PressTV, I completely understand your doubts concerning partiality; but I still find the conversation to be revealing and interesting.

On a more personal note, I consider myself to be a supporter of the sovereignty of both Israelis and Palestinians (how bland and idealistic I know); I just feel that this video explores an interesting facet of Americans' attitudes towards the conflict.

Oh woops, totally neglected the Iranian factor. For what it's worth, Dr. Sizer gave a talk at my relatively-conservative Christian university on a panel with relatively-conservative Theology professors. I entirely agree with you on the perceived lack of legitimacy on account of the domain name, but I feel that his critiques transcend that. And this is coming from a former stalwart Zionist.

Thanks for the embed fix and the promote. Much appreciated!

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
*promote the *vintage

Dance lemmings!

*dead

Perhaps I'll give *beg a shot.

Brilliant. Three of my favorite people.

*beg

*beg

Class act(s).

Propaganda?! Oh the outrage.

What color is that kettle?

Thank you, very interesting.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

I like it when he gets riled up.

I'd be interested to know how much of that budget went to scientific projects for the military...(what Eisenhower called the scientific-technological elite)