Y'know, I keep reading this page, and I keep still not understanding it. She cast a horoscope... for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter? Does pseudoscientific nonsense work any better on inanimate objects than it doesn't on humans? Of course, she says the horoscope for LRO is really bad, but only a few days after she posted that page NASA released those incredible pictures LRO took of the Apollo landing sites. And maybe someone should tell her that LRO is going to do a wee bit more than "crash a rocket into the Moon". I love this part too:
If we’d invested the same $583 million into research and into constructing resources to conserve and purify water here on earth, it would have been infinitely more valuable for our future.
Besides being a total non sequitur and a false dichotomy -- I explain that here -- I might suggest that had we spent that on education in science and critical thinking, she need not have cast that horoscope in the first place. And don't forget, kiddies:
Tip o' the wizard's hat to JREF fan Gary.
