Slashdot Mirror
Bush vs. Kerry on Science
chrisspurgeon writes "The science journal Nature put 15 questions to Senator Kerry and President Bush. Read the candidates' responses on topics such as stem cell research, greenhouse emissions, and manned spaceflight to Mars."
...in .pdf format is here if you don't want to hassle with the Flash presentation.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Climate change
Throughout his time in office, President George Bush has been slammed by environmentalists for avoiding steps to reduce global warming. Climate experts recommend cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions - and John Kerry pledges to take a greener stance.
Yucca Mountain
Twenty years ago an act of Congress put forward Yucca Mountain as a possible repository for the nation's nuclear waste - but fierce disputes over whether the site might leak radioactive material have held up its construction ever since. Now the mountain, in the political swing state of Nevada, has emerged as a hot campaign issue in the US presidential race, and both candidates claim that sound science is on their side
Stem cells
Before President George W. Bush arrived in the Oval Office, most Americans had never heard of a stem cell - a microscopic biological entity that can transform into hair, muscle or other human cell types. But four years on, the issue has escalated into a divisive one in US politics, and looks set to attract continued attention in the forthcoming election.
Manipulation of science
George Bush's presidency has suffered a rash of accusations that he is either ignoring or manipulating science. Democratic rival John Kerry, meanwhile, pledges to follow impartial scientific advice - but observers say that they are yet to be persuaded.
Nuclear weapons research
Late in 2002, the Bush administration proposed controversial plans to begin work on new designs for nuclear weapons. The idea has prompted fierce scientific and political opposition ever since.
Each political party has agendas. Each party will use science to support their agendas. However, when there is no real science to support their agenda, or when real science contradicts the agendas, bad science will be created or the importance of science will be lessened.
Both political parties are guilty of the above. Merely because the right believes in invisible beings who control our destiny, doesn't make it worse than the left, who believes that creating a permanent welfare culture will end poverty.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Says who? Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, although most slashdotters' simplistic attitudes fail to reflect this. That's like saying that someone who enjoys music couldn't possibly be any good at nuclear physics.
I'm studying biology and chemistry in high school; I also happen to be a Christian. Science and religion simply cover different aspects of the world. As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
2nd Corollary : Any post criticising the spelling of another poster will contain at least one spelling error. (OK, mine is technically a typo).
The defense rests, your Honorificness.
Money for nothing, pix for free
... Dracula vs. Wolfman on childcare.
While I will ignore the lack of proof in your comment to back it up (Even if it is in TFA) I must point out that looking to the bible for help does not necessarily indicate a person is not pro-science.
Being agnostic myself, I obviously don't do this...however, it is my opinion that religion as a whole is designed to instill hope, etc in a person. So what's wrong with reading a book while looking for a little help/inspiration/whatever?
Why the hell did they need to make this into Flash? There are no animations, no images, just hyperlinked text which is rendered too small... or not at all at first actually, as I normally use Firefox with adblocker.
With regards to the questions, wouldn't it have been more fun if they had asked B and K unprepared questions on science directly in person, without any speechwriters to hide behind?
"The HIV virus is a retrovirus. Can either of you tell us what that means?"
"Give us the strongest arguments pro and con for the existance of man-made global warming."
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
I'll bet that if President Bush instead claimed that he got his inspiration from "LOTR" you'd be drumming a different beat... ;-)
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Bush's supporters have been shown to vote for him soely on moral ground. The poorest county in america voted more then 80% for Bush. Why you ask? Because Bush has the Christian Right, a sizeable population. Bush can screw the enviroment, tax people into the ground, reinstate the draft, declare war on canada and mexico and still have the christian right's vote.
If people will wake up and realize that voting for Bush without understanding the issues is killing our country, then perhapse they will change... but until then bush can look forward to having all the bible thumpers under his belt, and abusing his power more and more. Ah well, personally, I think you should have to have a slashdot account to vote this year.
In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
I really hope you guys elect Dubya again. We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man.
Oh no... it's the future.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive
Religion and science? Perhaps not. Religion and the Bible in particular? Definitely.
The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.
I was amused that most of Kerry's responses mentioned John Edwards, but Cheney is not mentioned ONCE in Bush's answers. I suppose that makes sense for the questions about energy policy...
Its clear that the candidates don't ever plan on using these responses verbally. I'd love to see W try and pronounce "carbon sequestration". (In the Bush response to question #12.)
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
It should be noted that the current ban on stem-cell research actually only prevents funding research on the topic. Has anybody else seen that piece on 60 Minutes about the Howard Hughes research center that has been able to research it anyway because of its massive private funding?
That said, I'm still against the blocking of research funds. More eyes can be useful on this subejct, obviously.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
He's also pro-life AND pro-war, go figure.
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
I really don't see the point of this kind of 'interview.' Basically, each candidate is asked a series of questions, each of which has a 'good' or 'bad' answer. The results will shock you.
You mean the fact that, even on the fairly open questions, they bot do their best to hedge their bets and say as little as is possible with as many words as possible? Yes, that's what happens when you interview professional politicians, and I have begun to wonder about the point as well.
Why do we put up with interviews that simply give these politicians a platform to speak, rather than interviews that actually question them in depth? How about trying to actually fish a position and some definitive words out of them, instead of letting them answer with the usual nice sounding but empty rhetoric.
Okay, to be fair to Nature this was a written interview, so they didn't really have much choice, but this style of political interview is pretty much all you see in the US.
1. Politician is asked a question.
2. Politician gives a stirring mostly pre-prepared speech that may even have some vague relevance to the question asked.
3. Interviewer moves on to the next question.
What's with that?! Watch some BBC interviewers - I'd love to see nice half hour or hour interview of Kerry or Bush conducted by some of the BBC political interviewers. I think I would learn far more in that half hour than I have in all the election coverage so far.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
This is interesting: "what would you do to ensure that your administration receives genuinely impartial scientific advice?"
Both essentially answer: "It is really important to get impartial advice, that's why I will take only impartial advice."
Both don't get at all into the problem - which is "how do you know what advice is impartial?".
Both answers have nice parts like Bush's world class sentence "I have sought out the best scientific minds..." - completely ignoring that the question was "how do you deal with the problem that it is hard to know what good science is?"
Kerry's reasoning is equally interesting when he says "[Hey, how do I ensure that I receive impartial advice?] My administration would never utilize biased advice."
That's true Mr. President. You can very well be sure that you receive impartial advice when you just don't utilize the biased advice!
JUST ALWAYS BE SURE THAT YOU PERSONALLY SEEK OUT THE BEST SCIENTIFIC MINDS!
Both candidates didn't say anything about the problem itself stating trueisms of the worst order.
You can attach boosters to anything. It just costs more. -
Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 07, @12:26PM
The aforementioned term springs from the same mindset from which the term "World Series" is applied to a US-only baseball league.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
Kent Brockman: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?
............
..........
Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!
Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from senator Bob Dole.
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away!
Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a planet I never even heard of.
Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Read Pynchon.
They ask an interesting question about star wars here. Bush claims that the program is working, and will be much more fully operational soon, Kerry says that more research is needed. However, the question only focuses on the scientific aspects of the system, not on it's stratagic usefulness. The world is much different than it was during the Soviet era. During the soviet era, outside the possibility of submarines the only way for the Soviets to attack the US was through missiles, because we hardly did any trade at all with our "enemy", but today the world is much different.
Suppose North Korea really wanted to nuke the US. They have missiles that could potentially reach Alaska, MAYBE California, and will soon have the nuclear technology to make weapons, if they don't have it already. But if North Korea really wanted to attack the US, why would they use a missile whose source can be detectable when they could just sneak a missile on one of the thousands of Chinese ships that come to the US each year that go virtually unsearched by customs? North Korea would have to be morons not to have spies working in the Chinese shipping industry(unbeknowst to China of course).
We are just dumping money down the drain on a system that is questionable both scientifically and strategically.
Monstar L
Although maybe we shouldn't publicise this, it might provoke a nationalistic wave of support for you know who...
It already has. One of the most effective slurs against Kerry has been "he looks French."
an ill wind that blows no good
How good would it be to see an interviewer sit down and totally grill Bush or Kerry for a good hour, with no aides or press secretaries, or time limits to force them to move on, and with no fear of losing 'access' and no drip-fed policy announcements and spin.
I often think about this. I think I have decided that open press conferences should be consitutionally mandates. The President should have to face the public and the press at least once a week throughout his term, and during the campaign there should be both compulsory debates and compulsory open press conferences. None of this stage managed bullshit.
Doonesbury says it well.
Read Pynchon.
In fact, why not expand this to other issues? Why not require an on-the-spot literacy and basic knowledge test? I think that this would be a great idea, no leader left behind, and all. I may sound snarky, but i mean it. I'd love to see them have to answer some basic stuff. Things they really ought to know if they've got their hands on the purse strings and their finger on the button...
1. Which country does the US currently owe the most money to?
2. How much is one trillion, in millions?
(If you can't answer this, i don't want you spending my taxes. The English answer is often different from the American answer, too.)
3.a. What's the basic standard treatment for radiation sickness?
3.b. How thick should the walls of a fallout shelter be?
***
What else should be on the test?
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
For those who didn't RTFA, here's the answers:
... I can't believe I actually tallied these up.
Bush, questions 1-2, 4, 6-15: Yes, but no.
Kerry, questions 1, 6-15: Yes, but no.
Bush, questions 3, 5: No, but yes.
Kerry, questions 2-5: No, but yes.
A.
You are missing the point. Nobody is saying that science can replace religion. The previous poster's point was that the Christian faith in particular requires an attitude that is directly in opposition to the scientific process.
Only if you have to take the Bible literally. For example the Roman Catholic church reformed in the 60's to become much more liberal by normal Christian attitudes. Basically they say that if the Bible says "the Earth is flat" and then someone proves that it isn't, then the Bible was wrong. That's ok because it doesn't have to be taken for literal truth, or maybe someone messed up copying things along the way, or whatever. I have a fundamentalist geologist friend and he said "due to the abundance of evidence I can only say that the Earth is several billion years old." (I forget if it is billion or billions, sorry). Some religions and people are anti-science. But don't assume that Christians are all as shallow as you make them out to be. To semi-quote Neil Stephenson in Snowcrash - "Most smart people come to realize that 90% of the Bible is crap. The problem is they assume that the whole thing is crap, when that 10% is very important."
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,
As opposed to Kerry, who tries to affiliate himself with the Catholic Church to garner votes, only to be told by the Church itself to buzz off. Guess what? They're BOTH Politicians, and the parties really don't differ that much -- and the few things they differ on are divisive indeed. What they'd like you to ignore are all the similarities -- they're both plutocrats..
My point is, don't bank on a politician to be the source of change for the better. You can do more yourself, in a single day, to positively affect your own life and those around you than either Bush or Kerry can in 4 (or 8!) years.
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
Political diversity can only be good for a country like the US.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
First, it's a Bush vs. Kerry piece on slashdot concerning science, a definite fire hazard. And to make the situation all the more flammable, the assertion is made that pro-science and pro-religion are mutually exclusive ideas.
Science and religion can co-exist, for evidence I submit Isaac Newton, as a classic example, and Dr. Donald Knuth, as a more modern one. Donald Knuth has written a number of papers and books on the topic of computer science, as well as having written "3:16", which offers analysis of Chatper 3, Verse 16 of every book in the bible.
One need not reject science to be religious, and one need not reject religion to be scientific.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
I'm an athiest, yet I don't need a set of rules written down in a book to know what is right and wrong. My morals are consistent also.
I've heard this argument before, but I just don't get it. Do you honestly feel that an athiest is some kind of wild-man who runs around in a totally sociopathic way?
Come on...
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
It's possible to lead someone without having authority over them. In fact, that's the way leadership usually works. Anyone can command somebody who has to obey them. But true leaders encourage, inspire, and persuade people who don't *have* to follow them.
That's how captains of athletic teams are usually picked, and why middle linebackers are so important to the performance of a football team's defensive backs. The US military picks its combat leaders based on their performance *before* they have authority, not after.
The leader of the free world, if the US President abandoned that role, could just as well be French President Jacques Chirac or Nigerian President President Obasanjo.
Jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Talking to oneself ain't good, but so is the lack of line breaks...
On ITER:
Question6, Bush: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
July 13th 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham [energy.gov]: "a critically important experiment to test the feasibility of nuclear fusion as a source of electricity and hydrogen"
Firstly, ITER as a source of hydrogen? I know ITER might spur the hydrogen producers, but then could this equally say ITER would be a source of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) and tritium (heavy-heavy hydrogen). Huh?
Secondly, are these the words of our much loved Mr. Bush or did he just copy and paste some of Spencer Abraham's memos? This looks more like a 'whole party' thing.
Not so. I am Catholic, and fairly well-versed on apologetics.
Vatican II changed nothing of the faith. It was a pastoral council that changed only the expression of liturgy and language used to make the Faith more understandable to the modern world. Nothing of the faith changed.
The Church has always realized that Sacred Scripture is not a science textbook. The Bible is the story of how God relates to man and man's response. Many literary devices are used that seem to be non-sensical in modern English, but are in harmony and make perfect sense when you understand Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek prophetic language.
A perfect example is the whole "Left Behind" group nowadays which states that Christ will come not two times but three. (When He comes back the second, He will only be "in the clouds", so that's not a "real" coming back). What they neglect to notice is that the phraseology of "coming on clouds" in the Bible represents God's judgement. Ergo, when Christ comes back the second time it will be as Judge.
Many things in scripture use Hebrew prophetic language, and you have to understand the culture to understand the message. The Bible was not written outside of its culture as a message only for those 2,000 - 6,000 years later. It had relevance to the people each part was written to at the time, and you have to know the background to get a true sense of what Scripture is saying.
If you are really interested in this, check out a book entitled "Making Sense Out Of Scripture" by Mark Shea.
SYS 64738
By supporting Arlen Spectre over his challenger, Bush basically guaranteed that any of his allegedly anti-abortion judicial candidates would be "Borked" again. It was Spectre, a republican, that went off like a rabid attack dog on Bork when IIRC Bush senior was trying to get him approved. And do you know what the irony of it is? Bork is the kind of conservative that would have ripped Microsoft a new asshole on its anti-trust case if it had gone to the SCotUS.
Between his support for spectre, illegal alien amnesty, spending like a stripper with a stolen credit card, new entitlements and his equivocation on supporting Israel he stands to lose the Christian Right from the comments I've been reading on right-of-center sites. Most of them are not commentary sites either, but forums like FreeRepublic.
Unfortunately most of these guys will be deusch bags in 2004 and would stay home rather than vote for Petruka the Constitution Party candidate. Why? If it ain't the big guy, and it ain't their big guy, no point in voting. Most of them are probably working class or barely in the middle class because they cannot connect two simple facts: if they came out and voted LP or CP instead of voting for Bush, the minor parties would get so many votes that the RP would be howling in pain in 2004 and would be whoring itself out to the right to get its base back. But they won't do that, so why should the Republicans give a flying fuck about the Christian Right anymore?
As I have often quipped, we libertarians are the principled on the right, the "christian right" aren't principled, their voting habits show it. Rather they are merely the spoiled brats of the right.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
On most of the questions the responses from the candidates were equally uninformative. Overall I was impressed with the use of actual figures and specific plans in the Bush responses, versus the vague generalizations and even clearly ambiguous answers on questions like Mars and ballistic missile defenses that Kerry gave.
For the slightly interesting questions, here is the summary of responses(I am sure that Bush did not write his responses personally; for Kerry I am unsure, but I suspect that he didn't either):
Stem cell research: Bush quotes amounts of federal money given for stem cell research, whereas Kerry promises to allow federal funding of stem cell research on new lines. Scientists interested in stem cell research will all prefer Kerry's response.
Nuclear weapons: Bush promises to fund development of new types of nuclear weapons, Kerry promises not to.
Ballistic missile defense: Bush promises to deploy a system within the next two years, Kerry promises not to deploy the system Bush proposes for immediate deployment. No word on whether Kerry plans to continue funding research or eventually deploy a different system.
Greenhouse gas emmisions: Bush quotes previously announced goal of 18% reduction in US greenhouse gas emissions. Kerry promises to join Kyoto protocol.
Space science: Bush quotes Mars mission plan. Kerry promises that NASA will be given sufficient support for any future missions he proposes. No mention of any planned mission proposals, and it implies that he will can the Mars mission plan, although it doesn't say that explicitly.
Not even close. I'm an American (actually I have dual-citizenship, but that's neither here nor there) and I think that many non-Americans are very poorly informed about the issues involved in this election. I read the foreign papers (I speak French and Portuguese), and the analyses I have found therein are extremely cursory and often irrelevant. I had a discussion on Iraq with my cousin who is not an American and he spouted off this nonsense about war for oil. My brother is currently living in France and is inundated with idiots who think Bush is Hitler (and who apparently have no understanding of their own history).
Whatever side you come down on in this election, Americans believe that this is an extremely important one. And not just for foreign policy reasons. The country is making a choice between a candidate with strong socialist leanings (wanting to nationalize healthcare) and one with more capitalist ones (Medicare expansion notwithstanding). Quite frankly, the American issues you care about are only a small fraction of the ones I care about. Taxes, school vouchers, Social Security reform, healthcare, tort reform, and judicial appointments matter to me. There is no way that these issues matter to you in the same way.
If non-US citizens could vote, they would select the candidate that emasculates American military and cultural influence the most in order to shift the worldwide balance of power in their favor. Based on America's interests both domestically and abroad, I am confident that Americans will not vote in the same way.
The Bible is not self-consistent. The Bible makes claims that contradict observable phenomenon. The Christian faith requires people to make assumptions against available evidence. The Bible is inherently anti-science.
Christians read the Bible as if it came from a teacher, not as a textbook. As a result, Christians differ over what parts they think refer to historical narrative, and which ones are meant to instruct philosophically or morally or theologically.
For example, no Christian reads the Hebrew Proverbs as if each one of the proverbs is always true in all circumstances, in all possible ways. Proverbs is a book of proverbial wisdom, that is, a book of instruction in how to live wisely. In general, following the proverbial wisdom will lead to a more prosperous life than living otherwise, and people understand that. The Gospel of Mark, however, is understood by all Christians to be a historical narrative. The book is clearly intended to be read that way, as it refers to specific people in specific places, many of which are historically verifiable. The book of Revelation, obviously, doesn't work quite that way.
The most-debated books with regard to historical narrativity are the first few chapters of Genesis, Job, Esther, and John. The rest are understood to be historical narrative. Whether or not you agree that it is true historical narrative, it is obvious that certain books are intended to be read that way (1/2 Kings, Exodus, Ruth, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts), and others not (Isaiah, Romans, Revelation, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon).
Despite your previous comments, the Old and New Testament Scriptures have shown themselves to be reliable in the vast majority of archaeological findings. Don't trust my judgment -- take a look at the Biblical Archaeology Society, hardly a bastion of evangelical fervor.
Jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
Perhaps not coincidentally, the French also were involved in Vietnam, as its colonial power. Will John Kerry's nefarious weak-kneed continental foppishness never cease to disgust red-blooded Americans?
The "Wait a minute, don't you think he looks kind of... French...?" moment may have been as low a moment for the American electoral process as Karl Rove's South Carolina push polls implying John McCain had sired a mixed-race child out of wedlock. Hear all about it from McCain's own campaign people.
Not that the "Frenchie" thing was near as disturbing, as a tactic -- it didn't smack so outrageously of the most extreme possible "Southern Strategy." But it was if anything even more puerile, which has got to be a record.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I think you've got a good point here, but that you're being unnecessarily confrontational and that your point risks being lost in that.
Allow me to paraphrase:
Religion and Science are mutually exclusive because Science is built around the Scientific Process. Through this process of hypothesis and conclusion a theory can be disproved and shown to be wrong. Observable evidence from the physical world can be applied to a conjecture about the physical world and can be used to show that conjecture as true or false.
Religion does not have what are called "falsifiable" hypotheses. In other words, Religion puts forth explanations for which no evidence can be collected.
A Scientific Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because of a force called gravity which acts on all things."
A Religious Statement is one like "This ball drops to the floor because the Gods want it to and they reach out and pull it to the floor."
I can collect evidence for or against the Gravity hypothesis. We can argue over it and come to a meaningful conclusion. The Gods hypothesis is unfalsifiable because no matter what evidence I bring to the table you can say "The Gods didn't want your ball to fall" and that's the end of the discussion.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
That's a bit misleading. It's not that Science doesn't have room for morality; it's that Science doesn't address the issue. I'm sure that somewhere someone has compiled a sociological study of what behaviors are required of the individual in a utopian society. These could be considered a scientific moral code if you wanted to think of them that way. Religion fuses moral judgments with an attempt to explain the world. These are better separated. If you have thoughts on how a person should treat another person or thing, those thoughts are your own. There is nothing unscientific about your willingness to live by those beliefs or to encourage others to live by them. We can even scientifically demonstrate which beliefs make the people around you happy and angry and by extension which are more suited to the social community we live in (a Scientific pursuit). What we can't do is say that behavior X is desirable because a deity requires it. Morality is about how you interact with yourself and your world. If you don't want to eat pork, fine, don't eat pork. Don't tell me it's because God doesn't like pork though. Even God's gotta have a reason not to like bacon.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Well, I thought that Kerry's answers were generally a stark contrast to Bush's. Where as the Bush answers tended to be the standard ambiguous crap that usually comes out of his Whitehouse, the Kerry answers offered some firm decisions on some matters and ones that will make some officials sweat profusely if he wins.
For instance, on further Nuclear weapons, he was straight to the point. I paraphrase, "We will discontinue research for next-generation Nuclear weapons, they are not needed."
Also, he was very firm on all questions regarding international matters that America needs to work as part of the international community and not alone (read: not invading countries without the support of the UN or abandoning important treaties like Kyoto). It was good to see such positive assertions.
I also wonder why he's so consistent in referring to 'John Edwards and I'. Perhaps he wants to underline that he won't be a lone ranger?
This guy might actually be a reasonable dude. Of course, we all know that power corrupts, so it will be interesting to see if he (and John Edwards) stick to his (their) guns if Kerry does become the next president.
But whether Kerry can beat Bush probably comes down to whether people believe that Kerry will "kill those darned terrorisms that perpopulate the global world order and need exterminating by sending Arnie to war". Which is quite a sad indigtment of American politics. I don't know why I complain, British elections seem to pivot on who the Sun, Mirror, and Star (ie. the 'gutter' tabloids) tend to support. That and Blair is better than any current alternative.
Which makes me wonder... I wonder how Bush would do in a Prime Minister's Question time that Blair blazes through every Wednesday. (If you don't like Blair, you should watch PMQs, he's really rather good at verbally destroying anybody who attempts to attack him.)
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
Um yeah.... If they were attempting to kill non-US citizens on non-US territory, the US would have no right to hold them. That doesn't mean it would be "ok", but it would be Canada's job to arrest and hold them. And don't think that they wouldn't.
Addlepated - punk & metal
Einstein was willing to put his science before his faith, such as it was. Many have argued that Einstein's religion was more a reaction to oppression in Europe than it was a deeply seated religious belief.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Neil is wrong. If 90% of a source is crap but happens to be correct about 10% of its content, then clearly that source is a bad place to look for information about that remaining 10%. There is clearly a better place to look for information on that content.
:-)
Kinda like slashdot?
You think possibly the fact that not a SINGLE person in the senate voted (95 to 0) that the Kyoto treaty as it stood was acceptable, might also be a reason why he didn't persue entering into it?
In fact Bush has said that he supports the concept of the Kyoto treaty, (which would basically contradict what you are trying to say that he doesn't believe that humans can cause issues) but like ALL the other senators (remember every single one said don't sign it, Dem & Repub) has issues with the writing.
And it's not just all the US Senators, here's an open letter from SCIENTISTS also concerned with the content of the Kyoto treaty. http://www.envirotruth.org/openletter.cfm I'd say that a number of nations were rushing to "pat themselves on the back" rather than actually solving the issue.
I have been paying close attention to science policy since the Nixon years. Every administration, Republican and Democrat has had serious problems with its science policy, but in my opinion, and in the opinion of many of us old enough to have been there, there has never been an adminstration where Science was so badly distorted for ideological reasons. From climate change to missile defense to abortion to environmental toxins to the teaching of evolution, the Bush administration has made science subordinate to its ideological positions.
As others in this thread have noted, the actual printed responses in the Nature article are mostly unhelpful canned PR blurbs (and it is a scary sign of ideological polarization to see Nature, the world's most prestigious general scientific journal, described as "far left"), but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this is not just politics as usual. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who are friends of good science, but there is nothing conservative about the Bush administration in this regard: they are radicals, in favor of science only when it supports their ideology.
This is terribly dangerous. To paraphrase the great physicist, Richard Feynman, (whom I first heard make statements like this when I was a student at Caltech): For any technological society to succeed, sound science must take precendence over ideological conviction, because nature cannot be fooled. In my opinion, the Bush administration's failure to understand this concept presents a grave danger to our country and to the world.
It is confusing, isn't it? Basically, only in a clean-room hypothetical, would 90% of voters choose a third party. In the real world, third party candidates either don't get very much media attention for potential voters to care or are considered a bit too extreme.
The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush. So, by voting for a third-party, you're effectively taking a vote away from Kerry.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
You have to forgive people for thinking that the motivation for the invasion of Iraq had something to do with oil.
Because as it has become apparent, it certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor with 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Or if it did, it was executed so incompetently that claiming an ulterior motive is almost charitable.
None of the evidence that has come to light so far paints the actions of the current US administration in a positive light, inasmuch as it relates to the wars it has started. As regards other international affairs, it has actively fought any steps that would impinge upon the short-term benefit of large US corporations, for example in the arms industry, drug manufacture, agriculture. And of course there is the blatant disregard for the US' contribution to global warming.
Policies based in religious thought, not science, shape the US' position when looking at international family planning and poverty issues; the US has thrown its political weight around in trying to stymie UN policies on education and family planning which touch on contraception.
In international policy the US has been consistently belligerent; even now it is unilaterally trying to bully Iran on nuclear issues. It has strained relations with major allies, and amazingly has made itself even more disliked in the middle East.
So there are very good reasons why people outside the US have a very low opinion of Bush. Calling him a modern Hitler is hyperbole, but such low opinion of him is not unfounded.
Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
I had posted this in a previous story. This newer story seems to be more "on topic". This expresses the sad state of democracy these days.
---
Since I recently moved, I tried re-registering to vote in the new district. My wife (hardcore Republican) said not to bother because I usually side on the independent and I would be "wasting my vote". Funny thing, when I pass by the political party tents at the local Fair, they all ask if I'm registered to vote. I say, "No". I let them speak their piece about registering to vote, and I'm usually ready to fill out the paperwork they provide as a convienience. When I mention the fact that people tell me I'd be wasting my vote because I side with Independents, they get all quiet and move on to the next person. I guess their mottos are, "Please support Democracy and register to vote (as long as you vote for us)"
Every time that happens, I see why I side with the independents.
That's a tiger rock.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
Just because you haven't suffered another attack doesn't mean that your country is safer, or Bush has done his job. I'm not saying he hasn't, but you're attributing to causality what you can only attribute to correlation. It's like me BLAMING Bush for the attacks because there weren't any attacks on the U.S. before he came along.
Given how GWB has managed to turn a decent budget surplus into a record-breaking deficit in just four years, I'd say he knows how to spend as well.
I haven't seen US territory get hit with another major attack in the last three years.
This is not meant as a troll--although this is the hardest topic to avoid starting one in--but if we were hit, would you change your vote?
I ask because I firmly believe that we will be hit if Uncle Al thinks it'll help his goals, and I don't think that we can prevent it if Uncle Al cares to execute it. But then the question becomes: a) does Uncle Al prefer to see Bush or Kerry in control? I believe that there are arguments for either, which I'll probably have to elaborate on in the thread below; and b) would an attack make Bush more or less re-electable? Americans would surely feel the same wave of patriotism that they did the first time, and rally behind the commander-in-chief; otoh, Bush has credited himself with making the world and the US in particular much safer since he's the guy in charge. If Uncle Al puts a lie to that, are Americans likely to hold him accountable?
It's hard to me to guess, since I'll be voting for Kerry regardless of what happens. So I'm interested to hear from a "leaning-to-Bush" kinda guy to know if your vote could be flipped by an attack. I'm guessing that it couldn't be--but it seems like you've predicated your decision on his ability to make us safer, and if it's demonstrated that he really hasn't, I wonder if your opinion will change.
(Just to make sure this gets modded as a troll--I can't believe Cheney's latest statements, to the effect of: vote for Kerry and we'll be attacked; we've made the world safer, as we haven't been attacked since 9/11 due to our response. Either they know a lot more about Uncle Al's capability than I do--entirely possible--or they're doing a lot of wishful thinking and whistling past the graveyard. Uncle Al has already shown a willingness to influence the democratic process, so to challenge them to do it again seems like a stupid stupid stupid thing to do. I think it would have been much smarter to say "re-elect Bush as he's the only guy with the gumption to complete the job that's been started but to say that the job is over when it clearly isn't is just boggling. Didn't they learn from the Bring It On and the Mission Accomplished tough talk?)
--
$tar -xvf
The theory that a vote for Nader/Badnarik is a vote for Bush stems from the idea that people who vote for change are probably voting for Kerry and not for Bush.
When the choice is between a candidate from Party A who supports invading Iraq, opposes gay marriage, and thingks the FCC should have additional censorhip rights and a candidate from Party B who supports invading Iraq, opposes gay marriage, and thingks the FCC should have additional censorhip rights, the only vote for change is Part C.
Kerry == Bush.
A good starting point, in my opinion, is to read the opinion mags. The New Republic is a leading left-of-center opinion magazine. National Review is indispensible for those of us on the right. The Wall Street Journal provides the most insightful coverage of the major papers that I have seen, although they are obviously pro-capitalism and are therefore accused of being right-of-center. They require a subscription to read online, but I enjoy reading their editorial pages, which are free, and love their Best of the Web Today feature.
Obviously, I'm right-of-center politically, and what I find insightful, you may find unconvincing.
> Um, he's the guy who cut taxes. Kerry wants to raise them, er, repeal the cuts, er, something, unless you actually ask him, or something.
The original poster was giving an "even if" argument, not saying he raised taxes.
But, yes.. Bush did the tax refund thing. Oh boy, that $300 check really made a big difference for me. That was certainly worth growing the deficit even further than it already was. It was also at a time after the economic bubble had burst, and everyone knew the budget surplus was long gone. But, the Bushies pushed ahead, defying all logic or facts (a precedent for their Iraq policy), and did the tax refund anyway.
To me, a $300 tax break is not worth plunging the country further into debt, making the prospect of social security for my generation even more tenuous.
Just because we survived Reaganomics once doesn't mean it's sound fiscal policy.
Yeah, instead of false hope, it's much better to give them NO hope at all.
(We've not gone quite as far south as Russia, but Bush says he looked into Putin's soul and found a friend... and, no, I don't feel confortable posting this under my real name. Yes, it's that bad now in America.)
Look I hate Bush as much as anyone else, but that simply isn't true. Go to any left blog and look at some of the ranting there. Do you think those people are being tracked and locked up?
If you want insight into the candidate's views on science, you should look into views on basic issues, like Evolution.
Bush has made several comments supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. But, given the radical religious beliefs permeating his administration, this is not really surprising.
Ummm
It's not as if the only people who have been detained were provably in the act of actually trying to kill US citizens on or off US territory.
A lot of the detainees in Guantanamo were actually non-US citizens found in a non-US territory who have yet to have been proven to have any intention of killing US (or otherwise) citizens. The government has refused to provide any evidence outside of closed military tribunals to back this up. They've just said 'unlawful combatants' and said the Geneva convention doesn't apply.
The person who you were responding to was pointing out this very same thing.
So, er, what right to hold these people is this actually acting on again? Certainly not for having actually found them in the act or demonstrated what they're accused of.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It behooves us to stay ahead of the curve.
Well, the point is that our nuclear weapons are pretty "good". We can, quite easily, use them to nuke cities or islands full of civilians if we so desire.
What do you want to do? Nuke them harder?
Tactical weapons research...taking out military targets. That's worth researching. It can make war more humane while making our military force more powerful.
But I don't see any advantages in having nuclear weapons more devasting than what we already have.
Well, maybe for attacking space aliens or something.
Your Prayers Have Been Answered.
Stream
Use Real, Real Alternative, Quicktime or VLC. Not sure about WMP.
A real interview with the President. With a real jounalist from Ireland. From late June 2004 with Irish broadcasting.
OMG do he look incompetent. This is the little known but infamous interview where he claims that Pakistan is a democracy!
From the transcript:
[My emphasis]
Well as you will understand after viewing that; there is a reason why this is the only lenghty interview with non-preapproved questions he will do with a decent journalist asking real questions not just picthing.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
"Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of stem cell research as a solution to all medical problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been diagnosed."
Let's turn that around, shall we? Replace "oil exploration" with "stem cell research".
Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of [oil exploration] as a solution to all [energy] problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been [paying jacked-up oil prices].
One more time, with "ballistic missile defense system".
Bush makes it quite clear that people should stop thinking of [the ballistic missile defense system] as a solution to all [national security] problems, and especially NOW, at the current time, we shouldn't be giving false hope to people who have recently been [attacked by terrorists]
See, when you divorce the logic from the religious dogma held by some re: stem cell research, it's sounds incredibly stupid doesn't it?
I completely agree. Bush sure makes it easy to say there were no reasons other then economic gain for invading Iraq because he continues to lie about the reasonings for the war in the first place.
The facts are pretty simple. We had been saying for years that any WMD programs Saddam did have were moved out of country. There army was completely crippled from the early 90's. They had no proven links with the terrorists. Yet we are suppose to be stupid enough to believe they were a threat to the well being of us in the US?
Truth is Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two countries most involved with the terrorism. Iran admits to having a WMD program. We have proven they funded people like Bin Ladin. We have discovered that all of the major terrorist leaders either live in Saudi or Iran. Course you don't see us lined up to fight them do you? Saudi leaders are Bush family friends and we would want to jeopardize the military bases we have there (there are more US military bases in Saudi Arabia then any other country other then the US). Iran is actually organized well enough to fight a war if we showed up, and the economic gain from fighting a war with them wouldn't be nearly as high.
We would have been far better off spending the billions we have spent in Iraq to fix problems on our own soil, or to cut down on some of our debt. Instead we spend get to spend billions on Iraq and Bush wants to cut taxes. It doesn't take a smart person to realize that is a terrible idea. Which is of course why we have never ever had a tax cut during a war.
Kerry probably isn't the best person to lead the US. But Bush has proven he is a terrible person to do the job.
I don't typically vote Democrat, but I sure as hell will in this election.
The first assumption has no value - whether the Earth is cool or not compared to most of it's history doesn't matter. It suits us and our civilisation.
On the second assumption - almost all scientists involved in any kind of climate research would maintain that human action is very likely to be responsible for this. It's only in the US (out of the developed world) where there is any political disagreement on this...
Let me point out some fallacies I see being repeated over and over again throughout the threads on this topic:
Fallacy - The set of people who are scientists does not intersect the set of people who are Christians.
Fact - Many scientists are also Christians, including myself.
Fallacy - Bush does not allow stem cell research.
Fact - Bush does not support fetal stem cell research with my personal tax dollars. Dollars for stem cell research are still being spent by our government, and private institutions can perform their own embryonic stem cell research if they so choose. You can even donate your own personal money to support embryonic stem cell research.
That is all for now, thank you.
I believe I speak for many of us when I say that we like to read stuff that doesn't agree with our political viewpoint as long as it is well reasoned and doesn't claim to be the absolute truth but acknowledges that it's only an opinion.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
You are wrong too.
It is the Legistlature job to write laws(bills).
It is the Executives job to write laws(executive orders).
It is the Judicial job to write laws(judicial activism).
Here is my problem with John F. Kerry. He has had 20 something years in the Senate to author any legislation he thinks is good for America. Exactly what is his record on producing such legislation. Name 10. Name 9. Name 2. He has been sitting on his ASS for 20 years. 20 years of Senate, and still we don't know where he stands. It seems as if he is for and against everything. Prolife and prochoice. Pro Gun, anti gun.
Here is my problem with George W. Bush. He takes a stand, right or wrong, and "stays the course". We have a record of how things have been done for 4 years, and it is clear where he stands, like him or not.
Which is why I am voting LIBERTARIAN. With overriding moral platform of LIMITED Government AND Personal Responsibility. Government cannot replace responisibilty and the responsible don't need governance.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
From both candidates, I want to get solid answers to the following questions, among others:
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Dude, The New Republic is full of neo-conservatives and hardly qualifies as liberal. You want left/center-left, read The Nation or Dissent, or go to the Center for American Progress.
And not even then. I am a Southern Baptist who believes in the literal truth of the Bible. I also believe that phrases like "a thousand thousand angels" means "more people than I've seen in one place during my life in a sparsely-populated desert region", and "a thousand years" means "a period of time longer than my cultural upbringing has prepared me to comprehend".
Put another way: suppose God spoke to me and said "here is the timeline of Creation. See that dot? That's you. See that dot? That's the end of the Universe as you understand it. Go tell people.". Say I was a shepherd that had never heard of a number larger than "one thousand", and that was referring to a flock of sheep large enough to really impress me that "thousand" means "a whole lot". I'd probably come back with something like "the Universe will end after thousands of thousands of years". I would be speaking the literal truth within my ability to express the concepts that I had never encountered before.
When someone tells me that it's 10:45 AM, I don't think that it's really 104500.000000UTC. Why people assign arbitrarily precise values to bits of information that are inherently imprecise, either to prove that their interpretation of the Bible is The One True Way or that the Bible is a self-contradictory load of BS, is completely beyond me.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
That said some points: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to accommodate the introduction of the process of in vitro fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is artificially introduced into the woman's uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place.
Unless they vastly improved their methods, in vitro fertilizations means artificial fertilization of a number of eggs. A part is then placed in the uterus (where most simply die off) the rest is frozen for some time to see if they are needed and end in the trash after that. Mass murder.
As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed.
Ok, if this neural system might already be a sign of consciousness he'll still have to explain how there should be consciousness before the cells start differentiating (somewhere around day 6 iirc). So the morning-after pill should be all right.
Now if you're not one of the pro-life pet-scientists you should agree that consciousness before about week 20 is ridiculous.
To put it in other terms, would you rather invest $100 in an investment with a 6% return or one with a 37% return?
a 6% investment because 37% sounds LIKE SOME INVSETEMENT HAILALE MBUNGA EXPRESIDENT OF NIGERIA WUOLD SUGEST TOO YU
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
I'm more interested on why people assume that it has to be creationism OR evolution.
There's no such thing as "creationism" in science. Science is merely an epistomology that stresses experimentation, prediction, data gathering, and objective analysis. The fundamentals of science is simply this: an hypothesis must be falsifiable, or it is merely conjecture and flights of fancy.
I can assert there are invisible pink unicorns all around us, helping us every day. There are only two way to prove this assertion: present all these pink unicorns, or create an experiment that tests for the *nonexistence* of pink unicorns, and have that experiment present negative results. (That's a double-negative, which is a positive. Don't do that in English.)
Also, the ideal scientist will not set out to "prove" or "disprove" an hypothesis. They set out in search of the truth of the matter. An hypothesis is merely one step on the way to that truth, and they set out to test that hypothesis. As soon as they attempt to "prove" a particular hypothesis, their interpretation of the data becomes biased and skewed. (For example, check out Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box.)
Evolution is a theory, yes; but in science, "theory" is a class of hypothesis that have passed experimentation. This means it has been backed up by evidence, not by personal belief or the assertions of ancient documents of questionable literal veracity. The basics of evolution by natural selection (generally what people mean when they talk about "evolution") have passed all tests so far. Since we can't easily directly test natural selection, these tests are mostly comprised of tests of the predictions and necessities of natural selection, such as the genetic relationships among species, or the filling-in of the fossil record.
The problem isn't a personal belief in creationism, or a higher being. (To have a creation, you must have a creator.) That is a very personal choice, and since there is no known way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, there is no way to prove or disprove creationism. And in this, I respect whichever side you choose.
However, to teach something that doesn't even rate the label of "hypothesis" as a competing theory to evolution is to ignore the fundamental philosophy of science: the doctrine of testability. This is why the proposition of teaching creationism in a science class is absurd.
Doing so would be a disservice to our children, our society, and our future.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Most of the question answer pairs go something like this: Nature: If elected, how will you balance [some issue - e.g. the environment] with [some conflicting issue - e.g. industrial growth]? Candidate: I plan on a adressing [issue one] without sacrificing [issue two]. sadly this is probably too late on the board to save anyone the trouble of actually reading the pseudo-interview, but hey, I tried.
not everything is a science experiment!
Does Cuba have a system in place whereby normal people can introduce changes to their government?
Does America? The answer is no. An accurate statement would be: America has a system in place whereby a group of people can introduce changes to their government. If your group isn't big enough, no one's listening.
The fact that you consider the New Republic left-of-center speaks volumes about your politics. Most Democrats (rank-and-filers, not idiot DNC consultants) can't stand TNR's foreign policy.
Conservatives: please do not take the New Republic as representative of left-of-center views. It is not.
For your left wing fix, consider Counterpunch. For something moderate, take a look at The Nation or the columnists for Salon.
PS Any slashdot story that includes the word "Bush" (notwithstanding those discussing plantlife) is flamebait and should probably go on flamebait central.
Here's a brief synopsis of Kerry's Senate accomplishments:
Instrumental in passing most recent minimum wage increase; introduced bill to significantly increase commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS; passed law addressing nurse shortage; expanded early childhood development efforts; introduced plan that expanded children's health insurance coverage; stood with consumers against big banks on the bankruptcy bill and led and won the fight to pass the anti-money laundering act to stop terrorist and drug financing; secured assistance for families of Agent Orange; and led inquiry into savings and loan cleanup.
To keep things fair and balanced, here's a view from a Kerry-Edwards site, and one from Fox News.
And while you might trumpet the lesser of two evils, I pity you for your shortsightedness and lack of character.
As I pity you for yours.
Really, it's just a difference of priorities. IMO the most important thing is to get Bush out, mainly because he'll take Cheney, Ashcroft, and the rest with him. The action most likely to achieve that is to vote for Kerry.
I may disagree with Kerry on a few issues, but I think he'll be a fine president. I don't need, or even want, a clone of myself or a puppet who just parrots my beliefs. What I want is someone capable of independent thought, who's not so blinded by their ideals that they can't at least give consideration to the opposing viewpoint.
I see those qualities in Kerry, and therefor conclude that he will be a fine president. Yeah I have some disagreements with him, but I have equivalent or stronger disagreements with every third party candidate I know anything about. A thoughtful man can be reasoned with, and is capable of changing his stance when he finds the available facts warrant it. So, I pick the one most likely to unseat Bush, which, if you recall, is my primary goal in this election.
Since I'm sure you're wondering what I meant in my opening sentence, here it is: Your shortsightedness is you apparant failure to recognize the extent of the damage Bush and company will do, not just in America but all over the world, if given another four years. Your lack of character is your refusal to do what's necessary to prevent that.
Remember, the only thing necessary for evil triumph is for good men to do nothing. I think you are a good man (social liberal + fiscal conservative = good in my book) who has allowed himself to be blinded by his ideals.
I don't mean to flame you necessarily, but it has always been my opinion that anyone taking so aggressive a stance has clearly missed something, and needs to be hit in the face with an opposing viewpoint.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.