<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#fff" STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;background-color:#fff; "><DIV>Ted writes:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Anyway, <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Joan's</SPAN></SPAN> assessment of the nature of modern scientific research was flat out wrong. Much of it does focus on obscure details and theories that drive scientists "nuts," not the grand sweeping issues that Joan describes below:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>'What drives scientists nuts is string theory, or quantum mechanics, or Stephen <SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">Hawking's</SPAN></SPAN> admission that he made a mistake in his ori<SPAN class=correction id=""><SPAN class=correction id="">ginal</SPAN></SPAN> work on black holes and the origins of the universe.'"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think, Ted, that in reading my post, you have missed the gist. (Sorry for the rhyme there. I am first and foremost an English major, so I couldn't resist.) I <STRONG><U>know</U></STRONG> that there are hundreds of topics of research that have scientists very excited. I have an uncle-in-law who's a fish pathologist. He has devoted his life to performing autopsies on salmon -- and he loves his work! My point was simply that Nate Wilson's "shadow shroud" theory is not among the many, many topics that excite scientists, or, as Kai put it, "drives them nuts." As you point out, the world is a very interesting, amazing, obscure and esoteric place, and much of what excites science is well beyond our average and untutored understanding. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That is one of the many reasons why the bloated, titillated, ignorant, carelessly-researched coverage of the NSA-rooftop shroud nonsense has been both so annoying and so ridiculous. The media is damned lazy, and I, for one, am sick of subsidizing that laziness. I subscribe to <STRONG>The Moscow-Pullman Daily News</STRONG> and <STRONG>The Lewiston Morning Tribune</STRONG>. I pay for <STRONG>The Economist</STRONG>, <STRONG>Time</STRONG>, and <STRONG>The National Geographic</STRONG> My <STRONG>Dish Network</STRONG> bill is enormous. I want more for my money than this. The best bargain, news-wise, is the $30 per year that I spend on <STRONG>Salon.com Premium</STRONG>, and even then, I must supplement my daily news intake with a dozen other sources to get a reasonably well-rounded picture. Where is Edward R. Murrow when we need him? Gone, and no heir in sight. And listen, I don't give a damn how old he is, I want Walter Cronkite back on the air. That man knew how to work for a story. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Real scientists are out there doing real work -- real, interesting, and relevant work. But it's almost Easter, and ABC News would rather do a puff piece on the Easter Bunny than try to cover, say, what the Bush Administration's proposed cuts in research funding to universities might do to their genuine, important, world-changing work. In some ways, one might argue that this outsized coverage of what an English teacher in Idaho can do with a sheet of glass and a bed sheet gives sanction to the idea that we can afford to cut funding for real research by real researchers. Science? We don't need no stinking science. Using only his own faith-based initiative, Encyclopedia Brown of Moscow can re-create the Shroud of Turin! Next: a cure for cancer using only sunscreen and Nicorettes! </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>(Think about it -- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.) </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hippity, hoppity, Easter's on its way,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment</DIV> <DIV><A href="http://www.auntie-establishment.com">www.auntie-establishment.com</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>PS: I'm pretty damned excited about Noam Chomsky's visit to WSU. I know you'll be in the audience, Ted; want me to save you a seat?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML><br clear=all><hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a href='http://explorer.msn.com'>http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p>