Jeffrey Bell is at it again

[najab]

><i>I've seen several OpEd rebuttals to JB articles in Spacedaily. I would be more inclined to think that there aren't as many rebuttals posted simply because there aren't as many submitted.</i><p>Here's one - kinda: link.</p>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I happen to disagree totally, but that is another story</font>/i><br /><br />I regularly disagree with many of my own points. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> For example, I do believe that humans in space will inspire children to become scientists far more than robotic missions. I have never met a child who wants to grow up to be a robotic rover, but many want to grow up to be explorers.</i>

 

[lunatic133]

I'd be a robot if it meant being an explorer, but gosh darnit I'm a human. See that's my problem with the robots only policy. It's RACISM! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[kdavis007]

I think he is anti human space exploration...

 

[Aetius]

I guess that means we know who Sean O'Keefe's replacement will be when the Kerry Administration takes over.<br /><br />Just kidding. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Hey, I'd never vote for LiveShot but Election Day is still a long ways away. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld underestimated Kerry in 1996, and I hope the GOP doesn't make the same mistake in 2004. This guy specializes in grasping victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

[halman]

wvbraun,<br /><br />I believe that there as another reason why human spaceflight is very important besides colonization. We are currently destroying the only place in all that we can see where we can live without breathing aids and/or pressure suits. Industrial activities are dumping tons of toxic materials into the atmosphere every year, contaminating millions of liters of water a year, and threatening populations with fire, explosions, and toxic gases. Does anyone remember Bophal, India?<br /><br />At some point, we will have to move our industries off-planet if we want to go on living here. And off-planet industries offer the potential for much greater profitability, as raw materials are not the property of locals who have to be paid, or relocated. Energy is free for the taking, and practically any environment can be established easily.<br /><br />Technological societies rely upon advanced materials, yet advanced materials are often dangerous to produce. If we honestly expect to raise the standard of living of the billions of people living in poverty, we are going to dramatically increase the amount of damage done to the environment, even with strict pollution controls. Taking the offending industries out of the environment allows us to enjoy the benefits of advanced technology without having to deal with some of the negative side-effects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[SteveMick]

Aetius included the following in his recent post: "Hey, I'd never vote for LiveShot but Election Day is still a long ways away. Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld underestimated Kerry in 1996, and I hope the GOP doesn't make the same mistake in 2004. This guy specializes in grasping victory from the jaws of defeat. "<br /><br /> Yeah, wouldn't that be a stark contrast vs. our current misleader's predilection for pulling defeat from (budget surpluses, world good will, etc.) victory?<br /><br /> Also, don't you have to actually show up to serve honorably?<br /><br /> If a dem had done what W did(not) I'm sure the highly principled repubs would feel the same way and laud the honorable guard service of the dem right? ...just like you all discovered that nation building was suddenly a good thing once W wanted to do it in Iraq.<br /><br /> I notice an op-ed from Space Frontier Foundation in today's spacedaily so maybe they're seeking some balance.<br /><br />Steve<br /><br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

*psst*<br /><br />Try to keep the purely politics stuff in Free Space, okay? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thanks! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Aetius]

Sorry, I won't do it again Calli. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[alexblackwell]

The Making Of An Ex-Activist<br />by Jeffrey F. Bell, Honolulu (SPX)<br />SpaceDaily<br />December 22, 2004

 

[orzek]

Bell, trying to explain his stupidity I see. He complains about the "space activists" extremism yet he shows extremism of his own kind in his lopsided articles. As far as I can see he is still an idiot and his latest article doesn't in any way redeem him. He is one of those who criticise just for the sake of criticising. Nothing he says is constructive as that would take too much effort for him, yet distructive criticism is always easy for nearly everyone. Though I see that the criticism here DID seem to have an effect on him which is a positive.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Bell, trying to explain his stupidity I see.</i><br /><br />Jeff can be described in many ways but "stupid" isn't one of them.<br /><br /><i>He complains about the "space activists" extremism yet he shows extremism of his own kind in his lopsided articles</i>.<br /><br />Which is probably why they're posted as Op-Ed's.<br /><br /><i>As far as I can see he is still an idiot and his latest article doesn't in any way redeem him. He is one of those who criticise just for the sake of criticising. Nothing he says is constructive as that would take too much effort for him, yet distructive criticism is always easy for nearly everyone. Though I see that the criticism here DID seem to have an effect on him which is a positive</i>. <br /><br />If by "effect" you mean that he is going to start pulling his punches, forget it. His opinions will be just as blistering, and what's more, he has the wholehearted support of SpaceDaily's publisher.<br /><br />Frankly, although I believe Jeff can be a curmudgeon in his writing at times, his articles do offer a fresh perspective from, as he describes it, all of the "Space Cadet" fare commonly found on the Web in forums like this one.

 

[Swampcat]

My initial impression after reading this article was "why didn't he say that in the first place?"<br /><br />I've been reading Mr. Bell's articles for quite some time now and he had left me with a completely different understanding of his views. He came across as anti-manned spaceflight with a doom and gloom attitude toward everything NASA tried to do. Though occasionally I agreed with the point he was trying to make, his method of making that point rarely, if ever, offered any positive alternatives.<br /><br />Inclined, as I am, to the O'Neillian paradigm, I tend to agree with the assessment he offers in this latest article. Though I would hope otherwise, I fear that government programs will never pursue the kind of space activities that I would prefer seeing.<br /><br />Oh, well. At least now I think I understand some of the reasons for his previous articles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Does this mean "Alex Blackwell" is really Jeffrey Bell?</i><br /><br />No, it just means that I'm acquainted with the powers that be at SpaceDaily (i.e., Simon Mansfield, Bruce Moomaw, etc.).<br /><br />Not that they agree with Jeff Bell, mind you. However, they are mature and professional enough to recognize that there are many who appreciate the different, perhaps unique (as well as informed), perspective that Jeff Bell brings to the debate.

 

[blairf]

I always enjoy his articles, his 'view from the trenches' is far more illuminating than the PR puffery we usually get fed.<br /><br />I also note that since his last broadside against programmes doomed to fail some of his predictions have become more feasible<br /><br />1 - Robotic repair of Hubble (2 Bn and counting) is being seen as the nonsense it always was<br /><br />2 - Alternative ways of developing Promtheus than always dubious JIMO are being discussed<br /><br />3 - One of the canditates for NASA administrator is on record as saying the Shuttle should neve fly again<br /><br />Like him I now accept the painfully obvious fact that the case for space will be (and should always have been) dominated by economics (read cost to orbit).<br /><br />Every single 'space cadet' shoudl forget Rutan, NASA, Zubrin, O'Neil, Sagan et al and get praying for Elon Musk and SpaceX. I'm getting excited now and launch is still 2 months away!<br />

 

[toymaker]

"Jeff Bell, mind you. However, they are mature and professional enough to recognize that there are many who appreciate the different, perhaps unique (as well as informed), perspective that Jeff Bell brings to the debate"<br /><br />I disagree.In the past many of his articles besides rational arguments included personal attacks directed at those he dislikes.<br />Such behaviour doesn't make hinm a worthy part of the debate.<br /><br />

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>I disagree.In the past many of his articles besides rational arguments included personal attacks directed at those he dislikes.</i><br /><br />Well, I can't claim to know who Jeff Bell likes or dislikes, certainly not based on his SpaceDaily Op-Ed pieces.<br /><br /><i>Such behaviour strips him of being a worthy part of the debate.</i><br /><br />Not that I agree with your characterization, but using that criterion, 90% of the posters here would also be disqualified, and that's putting it charitably.

 

[blairf]

"I can't claim to know who Jeff Bell likes or dislikes, certainly not based on his SpaceDaily Op-Ed pieces"<br /><br />The kicking he gave Pillinger was cheap ... very very cheap

 

[toymaker]

"Well, I can't claim to know who Jeff Bell likes or dislikes, certainly not based on his SpaceDaily Op-Ed pieces."<br />I can gladly provide examples of such behaviour :<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04z.html<br />"There's another approach to dealing with the planetary protection problem that is most identified with Mars Society head Bob Zubrin: the Big Lie"<br /><br />"He is a man with a Holy Mission that can't be stopped by minor quibbles like the possible extinction of the human race"<br /><br />"In Zubrin's more insane rantings"<br /><br />I do undersand that Zubrin(And please understand-I am not his "follower") is criticized by many scientists on various grounds, but such statements aren't objective criticism.<br /><br /><br />"Not that I agree with your characterization, but using that criterion, 90% of the posters here would also be disqualified, and that's putting it charitably."<br />A public internet forum by its very nature, is an informal meeting place where people engaged in discourse. A online newspaper/portal/news source presents a different level of formality and by beheaving in manner below expected standards author damages the reputation of a such a state which allows such actions.<br />Now by reading Bell's post I did found criticism based on rational arguments, but I also found absurd attacks or critical statements based on absurd comparisions (Genesis probe compered to Andromeda movie), personal attacks and a lot of emotions, including hatred towards other, contempt, and indications of self loathing.<br />Now that is not something that I desire when reaching for a source like spacedaily.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>A public internet forum by its very nature, is an informal meeting place where people engaged in discourse. A online newspaper/portal/news source presents a different level of formality and by beheaving in manner below expected standards author damages the reputation of a such a state which allows such actions</i>. <br /><br />Forgive me for saying so, but that's ridiculous. Jeff Bell, by any reasonable definition, is merely an online columnist, no different than, say, Bill Safire, Maureen Dowd, E.J. Dionne, etc. Believe it or not, columnists often offer caustic opinions. In this respect, Bell is no different than the three I listed. That's the nature of <i>opinion writing</i>.<br /><br />At any rate, SpaceDaily is, or ought to be, primarily a space-related news outlet, not merely a cheerleader for Space Cadets. I'm certainly not defending everything that Jeff Bell writes but, frankly, some of the criticisms I've seen against him are silly.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>The kicking he gave Pillinger was cheap ... very very cheap</i>.<br /><br />Even assuming I agree with you, what's your point? Have you never heard of a columnist giving someone (<i>e.g</i>., a politician) a "kicking"? Why should Pillinger, who by any definition is a public figure, be immune to such criticism? Furthermore, I'm sure I could find someone who thought Bell was <i>too easy</i> on Pillinger.

 

[toymaker]

"Forgive me for saying so, but that's ridiculous. Jeff Bell, by any reasonable definition, is merely an online columnist, no different than, say, Bill Safire, Maureen Dowd, E.J. Dionne"<br />And by that raises above the level of expections for typical anonymous and infromal character of the public forum.<br />"That's the nature of opinion writing."<br />Personal insults instead of rational objections ? <br /><br />"SpaceDaily is, or ought to be, primarily a space-related news outlet, not merely a cheerleader for Space Cadets. I'm certainly not defending everything that Jeff Bell writes but, frankly, some of the criticisms I've seen against him are silly"<br />Nobody denying the right for and positive, healthy role of criticism based on scientific evidence, rationality, and experience. People object to Bell's writing because its filled with insults, personall attacks, contempt for others etc. <br /><br /><br />"Why should Pillinger, who by any definition is a public figure, be immune to such criticism? Furthermore, I'm sure I could find someone who thought Bell was too easy on Pillinger"<br />You raise two important issues-the first is debatable, a scientist is not a politician nor is he a tv star, his enviroment is science and research,his critic should be confined to the tools and norms that enviroment, not public contest of popularity(likewise their are diffrent standards for sports, politics or movie commentary).I doubt the rationality of treating scientists and their projects on the same level as tv stars, and their movies, because they are subject to different rules as to judging their performence.<br />Now the second point-the acknowledgment that one can find someone who insults "better" doesn't make an argument.One would want somoene who is able to criticise in scientific and rational matter issues he disagrees with, which would be both positive and healthy for scientific discourse, insulting people(insane, liar) doesn't enlighten us much as to the scientific flaws

 

[lunatic133]

I notice your sigline. You are both from University of Hawaii. Do you personally know Jeff Bell? <br /><br />Personally I find that he is just another ranting columnist whose intention is to piss people off -- he is to NASA, I suppose you could say, what Michael Moore is to the republicans. You can choose to be bothered by him or you can choose not to. <br /><br />Someone who really bothers me, however, is Keith Cowing of nasawatch.com. With an "editor's note" disclaimer or without, it's unprofessional to insert your own oppinion on an objective news site unless you, like spacedaily, have an op ed section specifically for that.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>You raise two important issues-the first is debatable, a scientist is not a politician nor is he a tv star...</i><br /><br />I'm amazed (okay, maybe not) that you seem to equate the Op-Ed section of SpaceDaily with formal scientific discourse. In any event, given the unique way he initiated Beagle 2 and scrounged for funding, Pillinger was, indeed, both a "politician" and a "tv star" [<i>sic</i>]. And a radio star, too.<br /><br /><i>Now the second point-the acknowledgment that one can find someone who insults "better" doesn't make an argument</i>.<br /><br />If I had said that, then you might have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, however, I did not say that. What I said (or at least implied) was that there are people who did not view Bell's article on Pillinger as "insulting." You are making the classic error in assuming that your definition of "insulting" is the standard. I'm sure there are many who would agree with you; I'm equally sure there many who do not.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>I notice your sigline. You are both from University of Hawaii. Do you personally know Jeff Bell?</i><br /><br />Believe it or not, I don't.