Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online

Buzz Skyline writes "Several groups representing the nation's scientists, engineers, and doctors are inviting presidential candidates Kerry and Bush to participate in a "Virtual Town Hall" meeting, according to an Associated Press article that appeared in USA Today. Planned topics include stem cell research policy and technical research funding. More information is available at HiTechTownHall.org. Kerry's people say he is eager to take part, but Bush has yet to respond."

Comments

disingenuous

[BigChigger]

It's not quite fair to say Kerry's "people" have agreed, but Bush himself has not. You've already displayed that this apparently is not a discourse about issues, but an ambush (pardon the pun ;-) to attack GWB. If I were GWB, I would not participate either. Besides, unlike most of the yahoos reading this board, GWB has a job.

BC

Re:disingenuous

[gantzm]

And if GWB didn't have the job, most of the yahoos reading this board would be employeed by now.

This crap is really amazing. I don't particulary like Bush or Kerry, but to put the entire blame of your misfortunes on a sitting president is stupid. It's takes more than one person to create the situation we have, including, but not limited to: Senators, Congressmen, Mayors, Counsel Members, Governors, etc.

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life. When things started going south nobody wanted to give up the gravy train.

So, next time you're farting around without a job, spend some time at the local library and actually learn how the country works. You might be surprised to learn how little power the president really has.

Maybe IHBT, but sometimes it's hard to tell with AC's. You have to wonder if they can really be that poorly informed.

Re:disingenuous

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Many problems can be blamed on individual states ramping up their budgets when "times were good", and living the high life.

Living the high life? I'm sorry I thought that was investment in infrastructure that had been ignored since the 60's. Tax cuts for the rich seems to be much more aligned with "living the high life" than fixing crumbling schools and environments.

As for entire blame on a President, you are correct. However, it wasn't Madeline Albright in India this spring telling the Indian business community that the President wouldn't do anything about outsourcing of jobs, it was Colin Powell. Even if you ignore the economic problems we've had since the good days, Bush has consistently supported policies that have exacerbated the situation for middle class Americans. The original poster's comment, while heavily oversimplified, was not without basis.

The President is also expected to lead the nation, to a degree. The President's complete lack of leadership, not to be confused with his arrogant stubbornness, is another reason people don't have jobs. How many people voted for Bush very cynically, believing he could get something done because of his connections and the people around him? What has he accomplished in the last 3.5 years? Higher levels of mercury in our nation's fresh water. Worst job creation record since Hoover. An economy that, at best, has some of the characteristics back that were lost during his Administration. Over extending our military, leaving us exposed to new dangers and old. No leadership on intelligence reform, even after report after report urging solutions. A record-breaking Federal budget deficit. Support for pork-barrel projects like Star Wars. Rolling back of environmental and labor protections.

W may not be personally responsible for a lot of the despair people are feeling these days, but he sure ain't doin shit to help.

Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[js7a]

The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.

Re:Bush won't be the one online, in any case

[arrow]

Neither will Kerry.

99.99% of all online chat sessions with stars, canidates, axe murderers, etc. are done with transcriptionists (people who get paid to type faster than most people can speak) present.

No one wants to wait around 6 minutes for person XYZ to type out a response to a question. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't spend their days in front of keyboards.

Badnarik??? Nader???

[mshiltonj]

Did they invite Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik? Why not? He will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states, plus DC. He's polling 4-5% in some states.

Re:Badnarik??? Nader???

[Hard_Code]

Calm down. All third parties need to do to gain access to the electoral system is:

1) petition each state with a simple signature count of 300% of the state population
2) to include the recently formed state of Atlantis
3) provide a simple proof that your great^4 grandfather was a citizen of the united states, ate only the chocolate portion of neopolitan ice cream, and owned exactly 2 dogs.
4) lift 3 times your body [politic] weight over your head
5) demonstrate faster than light travel

That's 6 [1] easy steps! Come on, stop whining.

[1] 6th step omitted, file a simple FOIA request to obtain it

bush?

[kevin lyda]

why invite bush? what would he have to say at a discussion on science?

Re:bush?

[linzeal]

I hardly think he is capable of that level of abstraction after hearing his state of the union addresses and comparing them to more off the cuff interviews the man is obviously of substandard intelligence. He has granted what 3 whole interviews since taking office? I believe all of them having to have their answers pre-screened.

Re:bush?

[toddt]

Looking at the campaign web pages is hardly the best way to evaluate the Bush science record.

Bush has a reliable record of squelching good science in favor of his chosen industries/religious beliefs.

For example, his administration has overruled his own EPA on recommended arsenic levels/clean air regulations, et cetera. His administration has intentionally suppressed independent expert research on global warming. Why? Occam's razor might suggest it has something to do with the MASSIVE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS made by the polluting industries.

Complicated subjects? Sure. But the subversion of science to political goals is what has many independent scientists irritated with the administration. Science is supposed to be intellectually free research, not dictated from the president.

Finally, your line about stem cell research is just asinine. People who want embryonic (NOT FETAL, thus no abortion, you asshat) stem cell lines aren't advocating abortion, they're advocating the pursuit of lines of research that could lead to some of the most significant advances on critical illness that we've ever seen. Ever.

Suppressing that simply to cater to the Christian Right, most of whom wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass, is simply wrong. Intellectually and morally.

Look, I'm not pleased with Kerry. But I'll be voting Anyone But Bush on election day, simply because I'd like to see independent science back in action.

Re:bush?

[write_with_numbers]

Try reading the book of platform ideas Kerry had published. Then remember that Bush's highest level technology advisor has a B.S. in Biology and zero days in a tech sector job. Try reading the facts and figures from the Union of Concerned Scientists. This non-partisan group, whose report has been signed by 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, has determined that the Bush administration has made more decisions in opposition to good scientific data than any other administration in history.

When looking for facts and figures to back up your argument, I suggest you go to a source that is controlled by neither party.

"And unlike Kerry, Bush mentions specific areas: space exploration, nanotechnology, hydrogen power, fusion, etc."

With no shuttles launching, how is he putting money into space exploration? With our access to new oil reserves in Iraq, it has been at least a year and a half since Bush has even mentioned hydrogen power (although he did once proclaim that his administration would focus on hydrogen to make us energy independant). All Slashdot readers should know that recently the U.S. fusion program was cancelled. Besides, when you deny the No Child Left Behind Act nearly 40% of the funding you promised, how can you expect there to be future scientists to work on these breakthroughs?

Read the Kerry/Edwards platform book. There are some very interesting ideas on how to find funding for the important scientific and environmental projects that this administration has routinely ignored.

Or just go to http://www.ucsusa.org/ and look for the report on the Bush administration published in Febuary of this year and updated to include more troubling facts recently.

Re:Fun afterwards

[escher]

Yeah, he's too busy on his Iraq map trying to figure out how to build his own Town Hall, Barracks, Blacksmith, and just where the hell to find trees to up his lumber.

Re:Fun afterwards

[BigDogCH]

LOL

And, all his citizens are standing around without a JOB!!!!

Is this thing on?

[Wylfing]

I clicked on this topic because I was absolutely positively sure I would see some +5 Funnies. I mean, come on. George W. Bush and science. There's gotta be a joke there.

Re:Fun afterwards

[magefile]

Not true. Private folks are going for adult/placental stems cells 'cuz embryonic stem cells are hard to get. And *no* *one* (mainstream, at least) wants fetal stem cells - these are *embryonic* stem cells. The ones that the in vitro docs flush down the toilet 'cuz they've got no other use for 'em. Read up on it sometime.