Slashdot Mirror
Call for a Presidential Debate on Science
Writer Matthew Chapman recently wrote a piece for the Washington Post calling for a science-only Presidential debate. While I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the candidates to embrace such a potentially difficult series of questions, a bit more emphasis on modern science and technology certainly couldn't hurt. "None of the candidates should know in advance what questions they might face. Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible, and this in itself would be a marvelous thing. However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun."
When pigs fly (and I'm sure science is working on this).
What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)
Would this be fun just to see a bunch of people who don't know anything about science trying to answer questions about science? or actually, they'll most likely sidestep the questions. Either that, or they'll explain their policies towards the science in question, which would surely only make all of us angry or something. I don't see much good coming out of this except potentially to expose the candidates' ignorance.
It'll never happen as long as the religious anti-any-science-that-my-holy-book-says-is-wrong crowd continues to hold any real weight in American politics.
Care about privacy? Read this!
There are some things you SHOULD delegate.
Science is either settled or debated.
Settled science is just memorization. Debated science is pretty much already publicized.
What I would like is for someone to say "The White House will no longer rewrite scientific reports made by agencies. If we believe something should not be 'promoted', we will move it to an appendix instead of removing it entirely."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That'd be cool with me. Let's make the reporters asking do the same. They're just as culpable for the shallow and sensationalist charades that that compose the election cycle. Actually, more so, since they hold themselves up as the self-appointed watchdogs.
All you need is Jesus.
It should be hosted by Bill Nye.
My webcomic
Not sure if this was meant as a joke, but Brownback of Kansas has already dropped out. There goes about half of your fun factor. The rest of the Republicans will hem and haw around the edges of the Creationism issue like a complex number approaching the Mandelbrot set, but Brownback came from the state so bold they redefined pi. The Democrats will try (and fail) to evoke Kennedy's passion for a moon launch while simultaneously explaining how scientifically advanced the latest V-Chip self-censoring technologies are getting.
[
You get the candidates you deserve. The voters and the media have made it impossible for candidates for major office (who are almost by definition smart, personable people) to do anything but recite polished talking points.
C'mon, do you think if any candidate stumbled on the tiniest fact, or said something that could be taken out of context to sound silly, the loudmouths here would ever let it slide? Go ask poor Ted Stevens about why it's 1337 to refer to Internet connections as "pipes" but you're a retard if you say "tubes"...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
"How old is the Earth? How old is the Universe? Answer both questions with a number."
Jesus freaks can vote for the guy who says "6,000 years".
Scientists can vote for the guy who says "4.5 billion years, 13.7 billion years, respectively, give or take a few hundred million"
And both the Jesus freaks and the scientists can agree on one thing: that any candidate who answers "they're both the same age, 4.5 billion years", or "both the same age, 13.7 billion years", or who splutters out something on the order of "millions" of years was so ignorant as to be wrong by at least three orders of magnitude.
Announcer: Mr President, with all of the issues about clean energy and rising oil prices, Americans are turning to alternate sources of energy. What are your thoughts on nuclear power? President: Its pronounced nuke-u-lar.
This is what's called a pipe dream. The candidate's will not be forced to study science, they're presidential candidate's! That why they hire advisors. An entire segment would have to alienate their constituents. It will not happen. The entire idea is mental masturbation. While you're at it tell the RIAA to stop sueing people and microsoft to open it's code.
Do we know if there's actually much correlation between positions that candidates espouse while running, and how they act when in office?
(I mean beyond what we can already know broadly based on their voting records and on their party affiliation.)
Think of this from a politician's perspective. This type of debate could really hurt them if they answer poorly, but it probably wouldn't help them at all with the vast majority of the population if they did well. So why would they agree to participate?
There are all sorts of great ideas for debates (including an actual debate instead of the charade debates we have now), that will never happen for the same reason. People, and the media, aren't willing to hold candidates accountable for refusing to hold a real debate, so it doesn't happen.
I'd love to see it, or some variant of it. I've grown tired of the lack of truthy-ness in scientific reports that have been influenced by the current nuke-u-lar president.
"However, a statement would be read at the start stating that no one expects politicians to understand every aspect of the many scientific disciplines. The debate's tone would try not to be adversarial, but cordial and educational. It could even be fun."
This is a promise I could see science activists fail to deliver on.
There's no point giving leeway or opening yourself up to shit, even if that is "just for fun", from people who hate you.
These people are scientists. They are politicians. Do I think they need to have the basic fundamentals of science down? No more than the normal person driving down the road. Do I believe they need to have a firm understanding that science/math/music/english etc.. are some the most important subjects within our academia and they need to be supported? Absolutely. Do I want to know who they "may" consider to have a scientific advisors? You bet!
Do I want to know if they have a clue about what E=mc2 means? No.. I really don't care.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sure, it is nice to know a President's stance on Stem Cell Research and the accelerating rate at which National Science Foundation budgets are being cut...
But equally important would be having a president who understands basic internet technology and whether they have intelligent opinions regarding the regulation thereof. It seems like there are a shortage of ladies and gentlemen in Washington who understand the latest technology. This would be helpful in Congress, too... because the aging Senators don't seem to be able to keep up with the time and young "with it" 20-30 year old candidates would help with adding much needed diversity in that branch of government.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
This has all the makings of a bad idea.
If done straight up in a science only, non-political debate, it would be an hour of 'uhh, I don't know's. With only a touch of bias it would quickly turn into a series of loaded questions (Science X will destroy the world and kill babies, do you support Science X?). At best you'll get the candidates up the talking about the importance of science, technology and invention in the US and how they'll pledge to fund it. Which is great and all, but they'll all just sit there agreeing that science is good and should get funded.
So what's the point?
If you give them a list of topics in advance, and change the questions to a political nature, ie: Topic X, how do you feel X is going to effect the environment, and with that concern how do you intend to minimize/maximize it's effect on the economy and working class?
THAT would be a bunch of questions worth listening to answers from a would-be president.
Unfortunately, it would take a huge amount of the candidate's time to stage such an event, and to be honest, they'll get more votes shaking hands and giving passionate speeches on the steps of some historic land mark while preaching to the choir about security, war, and money.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Not knowing the questions in advance would force them to study as much science as possible
No it wouldn't (they have neither the time nor the inclination). All it means is they would answer "I don't know".
However, much more likely is that they would not take part as it would make them look like idiots if they couldn't answer a question.
Why not make it international and rename it: "Is your president smarter than a 10 year-old?"
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
On the Republican side the first, and I mean *first* question would be about "Intelligent Design". The next would be about stem cell research. Things would go downhill from there. And the answers would be gone over with a fine tooth comb for items to ridicule, inspire outrage, or generate fear of the Impending Christofascist Regime (TM).
On the Democrat side, there'd be no questions to ask, since the Democrats and MSM are in complete agreement on all the major issues.
So, the Republicans aren't going to play because of the "Gotcha!" factor, and the Democrats won't play because, well, who needs boring TV?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Yeah. This would just be painful to watch. Can you imagine? We'd probably end up calling the debate "Son of the Intertubes".
And in an election that's going to be dominated by the Iraq debate (unless, you know, a bullshit issue like gay marriage rears its ugly head...again [rolls eyes]) it's rather pointless. All I want to hear out of the candidates regarding science is something along the lines of, "Yeah, I like science, sure I'd fund it." Anything more is just a waste of time.
To see which candidates would admit they don't know the answer and which would try to guess.
Under my administration, everybody, even poor people, will have access to FREE carbon! I mean, with the limited carbon availble, someone has to think of the children! It takes a village to produce carbon from hydrogen and oxygen, and I'll do my part to ensure that we all pitch in!
*whisper*
What? You can't produce carbon from hydgrogen and oxygen?
Well, I'm not anything if tough on crime! We'll make sure that anybody caught putting hydrogen and oxygen together to make carbon will get the justice they deserve!
My blog
A science-only debate would be an interesting (and funny) thing to watch. But in a country where nearly half the population believes the Earth is less than 10 000 years old, and where politicians regularly pander to this ignorance. . .I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for such a debate to happen.
from what i seen (especially the bush admin) is that politicians prefer to avoid science and keep their constituents as ignorant as possible about science, the more ignorant the constituents the better the politicians chances are of getting reelected and the better the government can lie & manipulate them...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Well, mostly because it's a wonderful chance to play The Polarization Game where they could peg the other side as idiots / heathens.
Don't touch the stuff.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
How do you pronounce 'nuclear'?
How about instead.
Which is better for science:
1: Publicly funded science where scientists are encouraged to seek grant funding from the state.
2: Privately funded science where Universities would be encouraged to fund research through licensing.
Then answer the same question with respect to society.
Deleted
The problem with choosing leaders in American society today is that it usually boils down to who can sell their lies more craftily than the opposition, and can create a PERCEPTION of superiority over their opponent. Why not choose our leaders based upon something they cannot escape: the truth. This could be measured by a compromise between primitive and modern methods. At some point in history, humans chose their leaders based upon true physical competition. Whoever won the contest through their own strength or cunning, won the mantle of leader. We should ditch elections altogether once and choose the president through a competitive tournament style system, where they would all be subjected to questions on history, philosophy, and science, as well as competitions involving problem solving skills. Surely, a transparent, competitive, quasi-gladiatorial style ritual of choosing would surely produce a more fit leader than our current method of choosing someone based upon who can spin the best media performance, financially and otherwise.
I would love to see these politicians explain how they're able to do what would normally be regarded as scientifically impossible. Such as:
1.) How they can be on both sides of every issue at the same time.
2.) How it's possible to speak for over an hour and not say anything.
The author pretends to want a debate, but then goes on to claim evolution as a fact, ridiculing those candidates who believe otherwise including the current president of the US of A.
DOn't get me wrong, I think bush is a looney and that evolution is self-evident HOWEVER if you already go into it with an opionin that evolution is true AND global warming (and related stuff) is true, then what is left to debate?
It is an intresting idea, but sadly it won't happen.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You realize, of course, politicians attend debates to enhance their electability. I am scratching my head and wondering just exactly what Slashdotters are hoping to learn from a debate like this, and how it would actually influence an election. I really don't care what my candidate thinks about science. I doubt he or she will be researching anything when he or she is president. I care more about his foreign policy inclinations, his position on government and social programs, and what he is actually going to do as a president. The only thing science related I care about is what money should go to research what.
Does it really matter if the candidate agrees with you on all matters of science? Or does it matter more that their policies they will actually put into place are in line with what you want for the country. I found the article juvenile and silly and written with a snide and "superior" tone. The writer wants the world to know how smart they are, and to "educate" the politicians (It could even be fun). Although I'm sure I would do quite well in a science debate, if I were a politician, I would have no interest in joining such an activity, especially if the writer of this article were there.
Here is what I want debates on: Social Security funding, Iraq War, Iran and nuclear weapons, Taxes, The rightful role of government in America, What countries we are going to work with and to what end, What scientific research will be a priority for the USA, Our Energy Policy, and How we will address Environmental issues. I couldn't care less about what they think about science.
What I would like is for someone to say "The White House will no longer rewrite scientific reports made by agencies. If we believe something should not be 'promoted', we will move it to an appendix instead of removing it entirely."
That's crazy talk. The only thing about science that is apolitical is a repeatable result of a given experimental condition. Everything else, from conclusions, interpretations, recommended course of action is political, and can certainly be edited by the White House, no matter who is elected.
What, do you think scientists don't lie?
This is my sig.
it is ironic really. the scientifically inclined poopooing the president's lack of knowledge on science... thereby revealing their own profound ignorance about what government and politics is all about
there's a tendency amongst the politically ignorant that every problem in the world, every pot hole, heart attack, lost job, lost football game, barking dog, homeless drug addict, etc., is the fault of the guy at the very top: "the president should be deeply involved in what matters to me, me, me" pffft
1. as if he knows
2. as if he cares
3. as if he should care
the point of government and real leadership is to delegate responsibility: the local public works department of your local city are the people to go to, not the president of the united states
the exact same logic applies with science. the president doesn't need to know ANY science
in fact, if the president were really into science, i'd be worried: he has better things to spend his time with. he should delegate the scientific inquiries to subordinates and departments. with all of the problems in the world, you really want our president spending hours exercising his mind on the homeobox gene or the source of cosmic rays?
i for one don't
seriously, this debate is a really stupid idea
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are allowed at the debates.
How about a nationally televised debate between scientists?
Why yes, they can push laws that supersede the laws of science. People fall from bridges and die? Why make gravity illegal!
Some laws are that stupid.
\u262D = \u5350
This probably won't be a popular view with the slashdot crowd but I disagree with the article on two and a half points.
First, I agree that there should be more science in politics but I disagree that the focus should be scientific topics. Instead, I'd like to see the scientific method applied political discussions in general. In particular, I'd like to see politicians define their viewpoints with sufficient precision and specificity that those viewpoints could be assessed using the scientific method. What do I mean by the "scientific method"? I mean comparison to patterns in factual observations.
Suppose we are concerned about people in the Middle East traveling to the USA and carrying out terrorist attacks. We should look at when we observe this to happen and when we don't observe this to happen and try to identify the observed patterns. If we think there might be a genetic component (that people in the Middle East are genetically predisposed to travel to the USA to carry out terrorist attacks) then we should address whether such a predisposition is consistent with what we observe about other genetic predispositions. Have we ever observed other similar genetic predispositions in other ethnic groups? Are ethnic groups even sufficiently uniform genetically that such a predisposition could be observed?
Second, the article claims that it is bad for politicians to not believe in "evolution". However, unless we define "evolution" much more precisely, the question is fundamentally meaningless. Are we asking whether bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics or are we asking whether life has any fundamental purpose?
Finally, I disagree that the politicians should not be allowed to know the questions in advance. I don't expect that a politician is going to be able to learn much science in a week or two of preparation. What I want to see is whether a politician already has enough of a scientific background that they can figure out the answer (in consultation with experts) to specific scientific questions that arise in the course of their job.
What about me who says 13.7 Billion at a minimum, but could quite honestly be infinite?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I don't think it's critical that a US President has great scientific knowledge, but I would like to see some evidence that a successful candidate understands what science is and why the thought processes involved are important.
Good science involves the ability on the part of the scientist to abandon ideas and modifying hypothesis that don't accord with the facts found via their investigations. It means accepting all facts that apply, not merely the ones that support the end-result that the scientist would prefer to reach. And it means an acceptance that inquiry can lead to important discovery in areas nobody expected, so you can't necessarily tell up-front whether funded research will produce results.
For some time in the United States we've confused technology with science. Each can contribute to the other, but they're not the same. A good question for those candidates might be to find out if they know the difference, and why it's important to know. But in the end, I think it would be more important for a President to demonstrate a knowledge and dedication to the scientific process of finding answers rather than to the current fascination for accepting or rejecting facts based on the result they want to achieve.
Why is a discussion about a scientific debate under the "On Faith" section of the Washington Post?
It sounds like a "science-only Presidential debate" is code for "asking the Presidential candidates whether or not they accept the Theory of Evolution."
Are we all in a fantasy world or what? Why even think about political candidates who have campaigns to run 18 hours a day, seven days a week cramming physics and chemistry for the benefit of slashdot readers and our like-minded friends?
Seriously, there's a fantasy world aspect to this where "our" people are dreamily off in science debate land when there are real issues to engage with.
You can debate theory. You can debate the impact and correlation of facts, but facts are facts and should not be "debated."
The current U.S. administration has been very effective at creating FUD around fact. Facts are those things that have been documented as 100% true. (not "truth" which is, of course different)
Once you allow "facts" to be debated, you allow any discussion of the result of those facts to be derailed. Any discussion then focuses on whether or not the "facts" are true. So the standard M.O. the last 7 years is to question the validity of facts, stall any discussion of the facts because there is question about the fact, and then politicize and censure scientists based on the FUD about the facts.
Debate science? no thanks. Take a science quiz/test, sure. We already have these idiots debating science, I'd like to see some measure of their understanding of science.
"What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)"
Pick one of the following:
A)This will naturally occur due to Global Warming.
II)This will occur because of the war in Iraq.
3) Religious Nutball, everyone knows that's impossible.
e) All of the above
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
1: I think quantum theory might have the answer to that one.
2: That's so easy my old pointy-haired boss could do it. And the current president, of course.
The commander and chief should necessarily be some kind of science geek?
Politicians have gotten scientific about saying they are steadfastly for or opposed to an idea because that sells, but votes are about making compromises. And in a complicated bill with multiple topics, the reasons for the compromises are lost, so there's always something to cling to in explaining why you're for X but voted against it, since there's always a Y that was in the bill that you said you opposed.
The problem is that politicians have caught onto, but journalists have not, the notion that they can arrange questions to be "are you in favor" or "are you against", but no real world question is of this form. So there is no relationship between what they say and what they do. The real world presents choices between multiple things you want but cannot have all at the same time. The real world puts penalties on getting the things you want.
A single-issue debate will never do it. Let's see an Socratic inquiry. Each politician locked in a separate room, with a Faraday cage to prevent transmitting data, and asked the same questions at the same time, unable to know what others are answering. A fixed set of questions. As much time as they need to answer them all. Then we can play the results for people to compare. Let's ask them if they had to choose between health care and saving the environment because we just didn't have the money, which would they think was more critical? Ask them if we had to choose between letting terrorists into the country and investing in education, where would they think the money best spent?
If you're going to talk science exclusively, let's make sure to talk science policy and philosophy, not just science fact. Presidents aren't scientists, but they need to be good managers who will create sound policy capable of representing us without saying "gee, you elected me, but I delegated it and have no responsibility."
Here's an example question: "You're the president. A recent report suggests that the environment is going down the tubes in ten years unless we stop using fossil fuels altogether. How would you verify the truth of this claim? What would be the next step in determining policy? Would you make this policy or would you delegate it? How would you decide who you could delegate it to? Would you inform the American people that it worried you and why or why not?" Now the reverse, "You're the president. You've been telling people not to use fossil fuels at all, but a recent report says that's hogwash." Same set of questions: "How would you verify the truth of that? What would be the next step in determining policy? Would you make this policy or inform the American people that it worried you and why or why not?"
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
I squirm enough when I see GW Bush up at a podium trying to sound smart. In fact I can't stand to see him speak. seeing a bunch of lying politicians trying to sound extra smart would be even more uncomfortable, mind you I would have to say most are probably smarter then he is.
Considering that Science is constantly an evolving process, how can you have a debate? I mean, wasn't too long ago they believed the earth was flat (Some still do), Sun revolves around Sun, US nvr landed on the moon, etc. Animals are extinct and ooops, there they are again. I have grown more skeptical of science in the last 10 years than I ever have especially since big $$ has entered the mix.
-------- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. --Ozzy
I'd be curious how many could pass a basic science test? Something you'd expect a science 101 student to answer. Everything from what is an element to the speed of light. I wouldn't bother to ask them to name the natural elements, I'd be shocked if most could name half. I couldn't name all the natural elements these days but I could probably name a 100 of them or close to. There's always a few rarer elements I forget. The real point is how can they make descisions about science subjects that affect us all if they can't even pass a science 101 test? It's a legimate question and far more important than their stance on abortion or gay marriage.
A non-scientist should be expected to know what the scientific consensus is. The scientific consensus for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. Unless you are capable of producing a theory that counters that number, you should just go ahead and say 13.7 billion years. The idea that laymen should go around disagreeing with scientific theories without even knowing how to come up with better theories is what got is in this creationism fiasco in the first place.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Let's have the candidates debate the freakin CONSTITUTION. You know... that withered old piece of paper they're sworn to defend?
Who'd be a better President: Kirk or Picard?
Can you eliminate that presidential physical fitness thing we had to do in gym class?
Are there alien spacecraft hidden at Area 51?
Are you the anti-christ like Damien from the Omen?
Can you fly like that President in Heroes, cause that'd be totally cool.
Could the Supreme Court start wearing those cool Jedi Council robes?
Could you use Linux, like, exclusively in like Air Force One or maybe some missiles or something?
A lot of people can answer that question in a way any given individual would find appropriate, but that doesn't mean they are qualified to be President. I can think of many cases where I may choose to vote for somebody who answers that question incorrectly, because they answer more of the task-specific questions appropriately than the other candidate.
I wish people would look at the big picture, and stop trying to boil the candidates down to 15 words or less.
How about the guy that says that it appears to be billions of years old, but there's no way of telling if our universe was created 4000 years ago (or 2 seconds ago) but with a history.
I mean, even Jesus freaks admit that Adam and Eve were created as adults and knowing language and how to walk... ie... history...
Then you get both sets of votes!
Right?
You mean for this branch of reality? Almost certainly no less than the Planck time of 5e-44 s.
Maybe sooner (than pigs will fly), because the candidates are already being asked questions that need scientific knowledge, such as global warming, or analytical skills, such as terrorism. But I don't know if anything useful can be determined from their answers, because the answers are about attracting voters, not about showing knowledge or grasp. Consider the following answer from Mike Huckabee...
"Oh, I believe in science. I certainly do," he said. "In fact, what I believe in is, I believe in God. I don't think there's a conflict between the two. But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. So I'll stick with God if the two are in conflict."
The moderator asks the candidates to hold up their hands if they do not believe in evolution. The audience then proceeds to laugh at those fools every bit as hard as Iranian President Ahmudinotgonnafindanygaypeoplehereidad. I want the evolution disbelievers to put their money where their mouths are ... well, that would entail cramming cash up the religious right's ass... but what I mean is they should demonstrate their disbelief in evolution by gargling the antibiotic-resistant flesh-eating bacteria, because obviously such a thing is impossible given that evolution does not exist.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
This has no point but to prove some are more savvy than others about scientific topics. No real politician would walk into a debate like this where they don't know the general topic that's being covered. Science is a massive category where it would be easily to railroad them and I guarantee that's what would happen.
If you focused it like Environmental issues where they didn't know which specific environmental issues were going to be discussed but limited them to current events that would be reasonable. I do not expect any politician to understand science as well as me. I expect them to know law, politics, cause and effect, and be aware of the real issues. That's why they are called politicians and not scientists.
Some good points were made though that a focus on a group of issues instead of the smorgous board of issues we see in debates would be a nice idea. A better idea would be to give them each a list of issues... 20-30 that currently affect our world. Some tailoring to the question about each issue would be ideal. Let each candidate pick 1 in secret and prepare all they want. Then that candidate will get to give their response, then each candidate after him would have to give their opinion of that topic.
This way they know the topics, but cannot prepare for them all.
I want a candidate who knows their issues. This would let them know what they need to focus on and in turn reveal to themselves what they need to learn without the fear of embarrassment.
It'll never happen as long as the religious anti-any-science-that-my-holy-book-says-is-wrong crowd continues to hold any real weight in American politics.
And without that segment, what would there be to debate?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
Sadly, only one candidate knows anything about the subject.
..but cordial and educational. It could even be fun. If there is a presidential debate that's cordial, educational, and fun, I'll buy SCO stock.A science debate is a good idea, but it would never happen. Most of the candidates would say something like, "it would be like a debate on religion, or a litmus test for presidency." They would reject the debate on those grounds alone.
While I admire Chapman's request, it's impractical. Imagine a candidate being asked a biology question that an 8th grader would know, but not understanding some of the basic terminology. They would look foolish in front of millions of Americans. Could you or I remember all of our 8th grade biology? I think not. Therefore, no politician would agree to such a debate: it would only hurt them, not help them.
Plus, most Americans simply aren't concerned with science. National security and the economy are the pressing matters of the day.
Health Insurance Quotes
It would also be good to have a president who has an honest viable plan how to handle the war. How to heal the wounds that an uneducated bozo tore everywhere in the world. How to regain the trust the US once had with most people in the world. Maybe a guy who knows a little bit about other cultures, history, ethics and yes, science too; someone who is educated. Please! This time maybe?
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
For the simple reason that in order to be wise you need not have been exposed to a particular doctrine.
Suppose, for instance, one had absolutely no knowledge of the Constitution, but was well versed in philosophy; Sartre and Kant and Plato and so on. One could recite the Magna Carta from memory (which, despite being foundational to the US Constitution you fail to mention). One was versed in economics and math and biology and psychology and some parts of history - saving anything U.S. related. Let us further suppose that one is even secular. Such a person could easily exist in today's world - it's unlikely in the U.S., but there are many well-developed countries in the world for which all of that could be true.
But what you're saying is that such a person is unfit to have a say in their government, if they happened to, of a sudden, be a citizen here. Simply because even though they may have been exposed to the principles of a document, they're not familiar with that document. And it's simply not true.
In the end, I think what counts is the desire to learn, and the passion to make a difference. If you're going to have a dividing line, it should be one based on service, which is quantifiable, not on merit, which is qualitative. But we live in a democracy, under common rules, because those rules affect us all. It is a very dubious moral prospect to suggest someone should be governed by laws they have no say in. If you're not familiar with that concept, one wonders if you're actually familiar with the basis of the US form of government.
[Ego]out
Actually, I'd expect the alleged balanced & fair crowd to parry by insisting that they needed equal time for debate, deftly framing the debate as one between faith and science, which is where they like it.
The sad thing is that those category areas are not in conflict, and hardly overlap at all. Only their usual politics is in conflict.
There are not a lot of politicians who show the kind of courage needed to navigate these waters, but let me point to C. Everett Koop as an example of someone who impressed me strongly. He was morally opposed to abortion but refused to abuse his position of power as Surgeon General by pushing his personal point of view on the public. Now that is faith.
Anyone who thinks Science is some sort of threat to an all-powerful God doesn't seem to me to have a lot of faith. If you're a believer, do you not believe God created the truths that science studies? Faith is about believing in things without proof, but it is not a claim that if you sought proof you'd find the thing you were believing in is not true. If the thing is true, proof isn't going to hurt anything.
For those who think Science is a threat to Faith, perhaps what they need is a class in logic and proof technique... not so that they can prove the world is other than it is, but just so they can prove to themselves that Science doesn't threaten Faith.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
I think it's safe to say that all candidates will, at some point in their lives, have heard the words "milllions of years ago". That ought to serve as an incredibly incorrect, but still minimally valid baseline to separate creationists from evolutionists. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily disqualify a candidate who was even 3 orders of magnitude short of the accepted age of the planet, although I would question his or her intelligence to some degree.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I want they question to be "Describe the internet", and see how many "series of tubes" answers we get.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I suspected from the summary that this idea was mainly about political topics like evolution or global warming where the author assumes he has science backing him. That was confirmed reading the article. The author is Charles Darwin's great-great-grandson (not that that means anything - I just thought it was interesting), but no scientist himself. His criticism of those that doubt evolution is based on appeal to higher authority ("all those scientists").
I don't think there would be much point in having such a debate. If the questions are about the "scientific issues" - those questions will certainly be asked in the debates anyway. If they are general scientific questions, what would it prove? It might just turn out that a candidate who is a global warming skeptic and evolution denier knows more than the other candidates about science in general. Would that change anyone's mind about who they support? Would it change anyone's mind on those issues?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I would not want Albert Einstein as President.
/. crowd here -- to get together and agree on every word of the text of a law on an important subject (IP law, education, national security) that would also garner enough support from everyday folks to, say, pass Congress, then I expect you'd get a big laugh too.
Quite right. God help us if scientists ruled the world -- and I say that as one. When it comes to their knowledge of and skills in social behaviour, as opposed to physics or biology, scientists are very often retarded. They are often terrible at forging consensus among competing interests or finding workable compromises, and they have no skill at all with using social myths to hold interest groups together. Often they're intellectual imperialists, and would cheerfully jam The Truth (whatever they see it to be) down everyone's throat by force in the misguided belief that all disagreement is merely the result of ignorance, and can be cured by a little (force-fed if necessary) education.
Fact is, humans specialize, and people good in one field (politics or science) are generally awful in another. Yes, politicians are typically stupid when it comes to science, and a debate like this would expose that, for all of us better-informed about science to have a good laugh.
But if you asked a roomful of scientists -- or even of the
Instead of trying to ridicule politicians for not knowing enough science (while they smirk behind their hands at the political naivete of scientists and engineers), maybe we could try respecting each others' specialized skills? Maybe the politicians could learn to respect the scientists' grasp of what Mother Nature allows and does not allow, and the scientists could learn to respect the politicians' grasp of what human nature allows and does not allow?
n. ????
n+1. PROFIT!
Maybe I'm on my own on this one, but upon reading about this my mind confronts me with a single inescapable truth. Our presidents are not elected to be scientists, and are generally not qualified to operate in that capacity. I honestly don't care what any of these people have to say on the topic of science. It is not really their job to decide matters of scientific import--a task for which entire branches of the government are populated with those infinitely more qualified. The attitude that the executive branch has any business deciding on scientific matters (particularly bad in the current administration), rather than accepting the conclusions of those paid by them and qualified to do so, boggles the mind. Perhaps I'm just jaded.
In short, leave the science to scientists. Legislate based on what they decide, rather than on the back of the mercurial political winds. Perhaps I'm just jaded...
Presidents don't need to know anything more about science than your average joe. They APPOINT people with that knowledge when and where they are needed. Contrary to popular belief, presidents don't need to be subject matter experts on everything.
It depends on the relative speed of the observer and the earth. And of the obeserver and the rest of the universe. Hence, we can predict Jesus's speed and acceleration very precisely (as it is 6,000 years, or 6,000 years plus a few days to Jesus, but 4.5 billion and 13.7 billion years to us, repectivly), but not his position.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
IANAmerican, but I can't imagine such a debate to be interesting or fruitful in any way. The best leaders may not be the best scientists and vice-versa, but that's what the successful leaders have advisors for. I'm positively sure that you'll be able to find an expert who is better at any given scientific topic (that's one expert per topic, not one expert for all of them) than any given successful political leader and tell you what: It doesn't matter. Political leaders don't need to know anything as long as they're able to interpret what a background-checked, neutral, verified commitee of experts tell them on any kind of research. Knowing about the subject matter's a great thing, but do you really think the casual knowledge one can grasp on most topics will be larger than the one of a few PhDs who deal with said subject matter five days per week from ten to whenever they get home?
Of course, mental stability, lack of religious zealotry and proper understanding of the english language ought to be a must, too, but the US of A have proven not to care about any of those points. I really admire them for giving a mentally challenged fanatic the chance to shine, but letting him lead them to war, twice, starting to ruin their economy and so on makes it seem like he's not the only mentally challenged person out there.
I have an even better idea:
"Agencies of the Federal Government no longer have the authority to issue scientific findings".
Problem solved.
Science didn't get to where it is today by suppressing any and all dissenting opinions. The idea of "scientific consensus" is absolute nonsense. Scientists disagree about things all the time, and so they test different ideas through experiments and logic. People that preach an unbending worldview from a book aren't called scientists, they are called priests. Dogma has no place in science.
Such a small percentage of the population even knows enough and is interested enough to follow a traditional debate. Throw in esoteric scientific debates, and you're cutting that number down to a measly slice of the citizenship.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Unfortunately, there is little direct evidence to support that statement as a true generalization. I agree; Corporations exert undue influence over the political process in the United States. But it should not be allowed to have an impact on who is allowed to or not allowed to vote.
[Ego]out
Richard Muller teaches a coarse entitled "Physics for Future Presidents" at Berkley. The class attempts to teach everything the President NEEDS to know about science and technology.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=owner%3Aucberkeley+physics+10&page=1&so=2
For example he explains that we don't have to worry too much about terrorists getting a hold of plutonium. The fact is that making a bomb out of it is incredibly difficult, requiring symmetrical explosive lenses and other sophisticated methods that they do not have the know-how to pull off. Making a bomb with uranium on the other hand is relative (hehe) childs-play.
The president does not need to know how to construct a working plutonium explosive, but he does need to know that fledgling nations/groups seek uranium over plutonium.
I will add that Muller is also very accessible, I have emailed him and received response.
Just an FYI -- the Bible says that the soul of man is ~6,000 years old, not that the earth or universe is 6,000 years old. It's still entirely possible to have evolution and a Creator.
The democrats will talk about needing to increase funding so the US can remain competitive while the republicans will argue for either:
A) Privitization of research
B) Point to religiously-funded organizations that criticize scientific theory.
C) All of the above
All it would run down to is an argument over Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creationism because all of the candidates are too ignorant or afraid to say that Evolution does not contradict Intelligent Design or Creationism, and that the religious zealots are idiots for bringing cases about Evolution to court when their real issue is the Big Bang threory*. Then they'd argue about global warming/climate change, and how mankind is(not) responsible for the rapid pace of change.
Now, if they would discuss pet projects that they would push for, other than the party projects (Global warming, moon/mars colony, etc), I'd *love* to hear which candidates want to do what, whether it's establishing underwater labs in the deep ocean to study our planet, to increasing the number of nuclear power plants to help combat our reliance on dirty fuels, to being serious about finding a sustainable plan for dealing with nuclear waste.
*Not that their case has any merit anyway, since anything that involves any form of religious faith belongs in Theology, not a science class.
How could a scientist possibly be worse?
At very least there should be a minimum G.P.A.
Presently Americans are perceived as a bunch of imbeciles, due to you-know-who.
Most physicists believe in God, however they know that man is ultimately responsible for all of his own actions.
At least we could have someone that could "do the math" when facing deficit spending or when facing an increasing body count, or when facing with rising global temperatures, or when facing with .
- I live the greatest adventure anyone could possibly desire. - Tosk the Hunted
If you want a debate that'd be useful, how about one on constitutional law? "Name one example where an existing law does not fit under the current broad umbrella of the commerce clause and providing for the general welfare." Or an economic debate? "Many candidates have proposed various public-private partnerships with corporations. How does this functionally differ from economic fascism, which is public-private partnerships?" "Name one federal government welfare program, individual or corporate, that you would eliminate." "Name any failure criteria for the war on [poverty|drugs] that would make you believe that we should reduce or eliminate spending, rather than expand it."
I'd rather see them recreate the vi vs. emacs paintball war.
I'm not a evolution denier, but it bothers the hell out of me when I see people trying to debate the flat earthers by taking a position that a theory is considered a law, when it is not.
democrat sheep.
bahh bahh, the republicans are the blame, bahh bahh.....
do democracy a favor and with hold your right to vote, because you clearly are voting for the wrong reasons
republicans are not your enemy, politicians are
Each candidate could send the person to the debate who they would appoint as National Science Adviser.
Why just a week? I mean, surely a week is insufficient to learn the ins and outs of how *our* democracy works. Maybe they should give it a month, or a year. Or, better yet, maybe they should have to get a certification of some sort created by a government party that is, of course, in no way affected by politics.
The principle of "government by consent of the governed" means that regardless of whether the 'governed' know how everything works, they should have the right to consent to their government. To do otherwise is tyrannical. Let us say, for instance, you have a test to prove that someone grasps the basic concepts. That suddenly means that everyone who cannot read the test cannot give that proof and cannot therefore give their consent. They are enslaved to what, to them, becomes a fascism. (If you're very familiar with programming, think of it as an interface; it doesn't matter if the object implements the 'democracy' interface, if all I have access to are the methods from the 'facism' interface, it is acting in all regards as a fascism to me.)
You can, of course, get around not being able to read. But someone who cannot speak the language? Is blind? Autistic? An idiot savant? There is a spectrum of problems that start to arise and questions that must be answered; how far does the government go to aid people in determining whether or not they grasp the necessary concepts? For that matter, does any test really test that? Or is it testing their test-taking ability, or ability to answer the questions asked? (Which we are assuming to be unbiased.) Do we require a dissertation for everyone who wants to vote?
Ultimately speaking, the government is *not* a code base, and people are not transistors. If you treat transistors unfairly, making some work and letting others play, the oppressed ones don't really care. You don't really want people that interchangeable anyway. You want to maximize the agency of all people. The only way to do that is to give everyone an equal and fair say in the government. It is not a question of 'being bothered'. Everyone is contributing to society; is it necessary that everyone learn the answers to a particular test, so as to ensure some level of conformity? Is that even desired? I argue that it is not. What is desired is, as stated, their consent, and their faith that their consent was fairly given.
[Ego]out
Best post of the week.
We will consult with the lawyers to see if combining Hydrogen and Oxygen is allowed under the law.
I like the idea of keeping the ignorant and willfully stupid from wreaking damage
You should discard your affection for the idea. It presupposes both that there is a significant class of ignorant and/or stupid people, and that they 'wreak damage' - neither idea of which is particularly provable.
Arguably, the worst damage done to this country has not been done by the ignorant or dumb, but by the intelligent but misguided. Since you can't offer universal enlightenment to everyone automatically, you have to let people achieve on their own. You can't do that by shutting them out of the process until they meet your standards (assuming, of course, you yourself are somehow enlightened). You have to let them in, let them experiment and learn. And you have to suffer the consequences of the less-than-perfect result.
But that is the other thing that you presuppose; that there is a perfect result. There might be for any one individual person or even relatively small group of people, but not for everyone. If there was there would be no need for compromise - and more importantly, for economics.
[Ego]out
Now THAT would be entertaining television!
Seriously. Especially after the contents (inevitably) leak, and we have companies offering courses to 'pass the vote test', what does the test end up proving? That we can all recite a mantra? Like Maoists? Or Nazis?
[Ego]out
...because the very fact that you chose to make such an idiotic statement in a public forum whose members think so highly of, and are so vocal about, their freedoms leads me to believe that I wouldn't have to worry about your vote cancelling-out mine.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Two reason's it'll never happen:
1. The Religious Right will physically beat, tar, and feather a Republican candidate for answering any scientific question with an answer other than "God made it that way".
2. The Theorist Left will bore everyone to death with long-winded theories and graphic models which, although scientifically sound, don't spark the kind of emotions that "Messicans are taking our jobs and raping our women", "Gays can't marry 'cause they ain't man and woman", and "You ain't a patriot if you don't support the war" does.
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
"Why do you feel that your God has to (a) deceive His creation, and (b) stick to "small tasks"? Why is He restricted to something that you can imagine?"
I don't think he has to do either a, or b. I think he choses to do what he will.
"Why not a God clever enough to set up a few fundamental physical constants, rules of mathematics, and something too interesting for me to imagine, hit the "run" button on the universe (maybe it was labeled "let there be light"), and let the whole thing run on nothing but physics for 13.7 billion years. 9.2 billion years into the run, a solar system forms that includes a planet."
Because thats not how he chose to do it. Now if I stand before him and he says BTW those periods of time mentioned in Genesis are actually about 750K years each (or 2.2 Billion years each) It would not change his nature.
"Why do you subject God to the limits of your lack of imagination?"
This is where we are going to hit a wall in this discussion. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I dont subject God to any limits I just read his word and gleam what I can from it.
"Science is just the game we play with God to figure out what His rules are."
I can agree with that science is not evil its a gift to see just how complex and beautiful God made everything
"Of course, that just means we humans have more interesting questions that we can't yet answer. Doesn't mean we can't stop trying."
Please don't confuse my belief as being anti science. Even the theories I don't believe has value in understanding the natural world..
Not only have a lot of posters, thankfully, come in on the side of common sense as to why it shouldn't happen but I also ask why should it even happen on this level?
There are going to be a ton of asshats who are going to make plenty of promises that if we elect candidate X, or worse yet anyone from party Y, that the sun will come out, the flowers will bloom and we'll all since songs of joy as gold coins fall from the sky. The truth of the matter is that no single person in the seat of the president is going to be able to make the kinds of changes that most here seem to want even if he did have a strong understanding of the science behind the agenda. And this isn't even on the party level. Assuming that the single best human on the face of the planet suddenly was president for the next decade he or she would be so bogged down in the crap from previous administrations and the simpler side of political corruption that there would be little forward advancement.
Overall you're probably better off worrying about the state and state-held federal office seats in your little corner of the world as those votes count for more and will probably have a wider influence on your daily lives. And this isn't even to mention my own outlook on it: this is where the third parties need to get a foothold first.
In all honesty, being more in tune with state politics is going to get you more bang for your vote and the occasional session of letter* writing to your congressmen is probably more powerful of an influence than your vote for president ever will be.
* BTW: No, e-mail doesn't count. Buy a stamp you cheapskate.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Al Gore would win, even if he didn't show up...
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
I want one who listens to scientists.
I consider myself fairly well read in science, but I would not feel comfortable making decisions with regard to climate change - because I'm not an expert in that field! Bush thinks he knows science, that's why he doesn't care to take advice from leading researchers.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
"So why would they agree to participate?"
Because we want them to and it's their fucking job.
Seriously, all I see modded up are "this'll NEVAH EVAH EVAH EVAH happen" from the typical slashtroll doomsayers, who've never seen a good idea in their lives, and never posited a good outcome for any situation of any kind ever.
How about this, instead of asking "why would they participate" you should be asking "why is it so in vogue to bitch about how these things are never going to happen, and let these cowardly fucks off the hook".
Consider yourself part of the problem.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Clinton's Law: As any political thread grows longer, the probability that someone will invoke the "Some member of the other party did something similar at some time in the past; therefore it's OK when someone in our party does it now" defense approaches 1.
0 1 - just my two bits
Scientists disagree about things all the time
Yeah. *Scientists* disagree. And how do they go about it? By invalidating each others theories with evidence, and then providing alternative theories. But that *doesn't* make it acceptable (in the sense that we should passively accept) for a layman to take a position which contradicts our current knowledge, unless they can provide experimental evidence to back their position.
Put another way, I'm not going to simply accept some idiot convincing people that the earth is 6,000 years old just because he says so. Provide evidence, or quit misinforming people. It's not just unproductive, it's actually damaging, as it breeds ignorance.
Dogma has no place in science.
Who said anything about dogma? The current accepted theory about the origin of life on earth evolution. The majority of scientists accept this view. Does that make it dogma? No. It just means that's the current state of the art, and it will remain so until someone provides evidence which is unexplainable in the framework of the current theory.
Gaius Baltar.
Just an FYI -- the Bible says that the soul of man is ~6,000 years old
So, prior to 6,000 years ago, all those Homo Sapiens walking around had no souls? Huh... poor bastards...
I just saw Hillary Clinton speak, and she promised that her Administration would leave science to the scientists. At first I thought this promise was one of those feel-good sound bites that candidates throw out without actually thinking the problems through. But she talked about the time and effort it would take to "de-Fed" the scientific orgs, re-engineer the funding processes, and remove the politics from oversight agencies.
It seemed she'd given serious thought and planning to un-fucking federally-funded science. And, really, if someone's going to be responsible for unfucking something, I think Hillary could do it.
I, do, however, expect him or her to not treat the bible as a science book nor continually ignore and override those who are scientists with political agenda arguments.
"Gawd did it" is NOT science.
Please point to the portion where he says "a test to see if people agree with the rules of the Constitution."
The basic rules of the country are supposed to be taught in High School civics/social studies/government/whatever classes. Knowing them does not require agreeing with them.
In fact, I would say that it behooves those who do not agree with them to know them at least as well as those who do. There are few things more embarrassing than declaring loudly, "I disagree with your (X)! It is an abomination and needs to be scrapped!" only to discover that there are large portions of it which are, in fact, exactly what you believe...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Like tracking the daily tally of money raised by candidates, because ultimately that money will be spent on advertising which the media makes money from. So don't expect anything too informative or investigative unless it' a sexual/monetary scandal.
Pork is flying out of Washington. Does that count?
...especially the ones given some super citizen privilege of carrying guns and having life and death ultimate state sponsored violence "rights". "A simple test to see if people actually know the rules of the constitution". Yes, indeed. Apply it to cops *first*, ie, "free speech zones", etc, then to soldiers with regards to illegal wars based on provable lies and "following orders".
I find it quite disturbing that the ones with flags sewn on their shirts and the most rah rah rah you must "support us for your freedom!!etc" stuff are the first ones to always seriously break their "oaths". They usually show little to no actual understanding of the Constitution, get it confused with just a job they do and following orders to protect the elite status quo folks and their even weirder policies. If you could get the cops and military to stop disobeying the Constitution, and to really respect their oaths instead of just parroting them, then the insane politician/dictators wouldn't be able to promote their weird agendas. You look around the world, tyrannical regimes exist because they give orders to willing order followers who are armed, and you got to know that they know they are being jerks. If it was just the pipsqueak tyrants, they would have no power, they would get carted off to the looney bin or to jail, but once the system gets corrupted so that all orders are followed without fail, too bad, you have now crossed the line into a police state. Some police states are, at this exact time, obviously worse than others, but that is the dividing line, and eventually they all become heinous, history is 100% accurate on that score. When the official armed guys follow all orders, or have the intelligence and guts to say "no" en masse or at least in majority numbers when what they are doing is obviously hurtful and/or illegal to the citizenry is the exact definitive point between functional and fair governments and police states.
Unfortunately, in the US, that line was crossed a long time ago, and it is getting worse daily, and it certainly doesn't look like too many of them care one bit, that check and pension is just too important.
And what if it were not a community of Muslims, but a Muslim judge—and not a local park, but the local county courthouse?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
"Actually..."
Actually, you are wrong, so actually, you should shut the fuck up.
Thanks.
PS, Actually, I hate idiots like you who preface their OPINIONS with "actually" as though in giving their opinions they are correcting some fact.
Actually, I just hate idiots who think saying "actually" is an appropriate way to begin a conversation.
Like you.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Apparently, the author forgot that American politics consists almost entirely of adversarialism. I mean, if Barak Obama has to promise to go after his "opponents" in his own party more just so he can have hopes of being nominated, what makes you think anything in politics could be "not adversarial?"
When ever a republican does anything bad, they will site some obscure instance where Bill Clinton did it or that it is Bill Clinton's fault.
From Wikipedia:
.... A polymath, Jefferson achieved distinction as, among other things, a horticulturist, statesman, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, author, inventor and founder of the University of Virginia.
Benjamin Franklin (January 17 [O.S. January 6] 1706 - April 17, 1790) was one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a leading author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist, and diplomat.
Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 - 4 July 1826)[1] was the third President of the United States (1801-1809), the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and one of the most influential Founding Fathers
The above is just an example, shows that some of the founding fathers, one was a president, were scientists or very interested in science. I believe that's why they encouraged science and education, which made the US the leader of science & technology.
Also during the Clinton/Gore period, science/innovation was the primary force, which led to advancement in many fields, record surplus, etc....
If candidates agree on such a debate, it doesn't have to be detailed, they shouldn't be asked to state equations & formulas, but instead to state their vision and plans for science & engineering. Hilary Clinton might have an advantage, because she was close to Al Gore & also the science advisor for Bill Clinton was Bill Joy, very visionary and futuristic - By the way I don't want her to be the president, I'd like to see her as a VP for Joe Biden, because Biden knows the world & the important issues more than the rest of the candidates. I hope he cares about science as well, if he doesn't know enough, he should ask Al Gore.
What you prepose (a test administered as a minimal bar to voting) is preciesly the tactic used by the southern democratic machine to keep blacks out of the voting booths after the civil war. It is for that reason that the 14th amendment and its children the civil rights acts were passed.
-GiH
The correct political answer is: "They're both older than me, but not as old as my opponent." Chuckle, then make exploding-bomb-hand-motion over the heart while pointing at the more senior, graying opponent with a history of medical problems.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
"Seriously, all I see modded up are "this'll NEVAH EVAH EVAH EVAH happen" from the typical slashtroll doomsayers, who've never seen a good idea in their lives,"
Well, that's what you did, and many others as well, ant they're modded up. So by "bad" you mean accurate?
"You see, intelligent people realize that to solve a problem, you start by understanding the cause of the problem"
Right with you so far.
"This, instead of your proposal of "not bitching" and, apparently, just pulling "solutions" out of our ass"
Ah, the old "attribute something to him that he never said" gambit. Totally expected, but no this soon. I guess you're new at this.
"You probably don't even realize the irony of your hypothetical question, considering you're doing exactly the thing you claim to be against."
Again, your reading comprehension fails you. I never claimed to be against ANYTHING, I only criticized the incessant complaining of the futility of EVERYTHING THAT IS EVER SUGGESTED and the positive mods said complaining gets.
Or are you unaware of the difference between crtiticism coupled wih action (as I suggest) and bitching (what you did)? It appears you are.
"Of course, even if you did realize it, you'd still be a troll, whether that was your intention or not."
And now the old "I can't refute you, so I'll call you a troll" bit. Admitting defeat early I guess. At least this "troll" doesn't have to resort to lying about what you said, like you did.
Perhaps if you'd learned to actually read what I wrote instead of using the same failed reasoning skills you've already displayed you'd realize why everything you said there is wrong.
I guess if you really think like you do, then any call to stop whining like a little baby and actually DO something would cause you great discomfort. Apparently, it has, and your response, instead of rising to the occasion, was to lie about my argument.
Again, totally expected.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Let them, "Ask the audience", "phone a friend/lifeline" and "ask an expert"
;-p They could even bring in their proposed cabinet members and do it Survivor style with teams!!!!!
would make for good TV if nothing else... hell, just get them all to go on a special episode of Who wants to be a millionaire or jeopardy... in fact that gives me an idea.... instead of allowing candidates to use their own money or donations for campaigning, they should have to 'win' the money in various contests of skill and knowledge
seriously, is it such a bad idea?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
for example, you don't have any. you can't make your points without sounding spastic and hysterical
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Us freedom loving libertarians ought to be ecstatic about such a debate. Ron Paul would be the most knowledgeable candidate at the debate. His education and his ability to study and form policies as he encounters information, along with his excellent moral framework of interpreting things through the constitution and limited government, would enable him to give the best answers. Yes, he does believe in God, but I have never seen him let that interfere with his views on administration of government. I'm an atheist and I support him. He understands the need for protection of freedom of speech on the street and the internet (net neutrality included).
Ask any of the other candidates about biology and you'd get a "huh?", but Ron Paul would definitive answers with excellent understanding of the subject matter and he would actually formulate his own conclusions. Not "my advisor/campaign manager told me that global warming is [blank] because [blank] number of Americans actually care enough or know enough about it."
"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
This idea is rather half-baked - whether the candidates are science experts is neither here nor there. Their ATTITUDES toward science are what's important.
Sean
Don't be silly.
The carbon just evolved from the hydrogen and oxygen that came off the one true creator's noodly appendages.
Here's the scoop on atomic evolution. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
In the beginning, we were only hydrogen. Okay? Floating out in space. And then one day a hydrogen had a retard baby,
and the retard baby was different, so it got to exist. So Retard Helium goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day,
a retard baby Berylium goes on to make more retard babies. So the mutant regard Oxygen screws a Hydrogen and ended
up with a mutant disabled Carbon baby.
So there you have it. The fundamental building block of life is the retarded disabled offspring of five Oxygen
atoms having butt sex with a Hydrogenl! Congratulations!
... but I can pretty well guarantee it's not true. One's rights in the Army are highly circumscribed, and the "right" to overrule your boss on what's communicated to higher headquarters is not one of them.
He's the President and you're some fucking guy posting on a web board.
He's vastly, colossally powerful and influential, in addition to being incredibly wealthy.
He's set for the rest of his life, to do with it as he pleases.
So, while I appreciate your totally partisan attack, I'll take his kind of smart over your "loser in his mom's basement" smart any day of the week.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
you think i'm defending bush. i'm not
i'm saying that the president need not know any science
those are two different subject matters
the problem with bush is not that he doesn't know any science, but that he happily panders to his fundamentalist christian political base by advancing their agenda
that's a completely different subject matter than knowing science or not
which further illustrates my point: the average slashbot here doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to understanding what politics is all about. it's a subset of a more general problem: a lack of social skills. which is what you get when you get too buried in the pursuit of science: you can't adequately describe science in such a compelling way to other people that politicians listen to you, respect you, and follow up with your concerns. you think you can spastically yell hysterical things and people are going to respec tyou, even if you do understand science better. yeah, you understand science. you just don't understand human beings. politicians do. get the difference?
you just expect the president to know everything you do and agree with your pov, simply because you're the king of the universe for knowing science. and if he doesn't, well then you have every right to spaz out hysterically. because that behavior, of course, will make science important in politics
pfffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you think i'm defending bush. i'm not
i'm saying that the president need not know any science
those are two different subject matters
You think I'm attacking Bush. I'm not.
I'm saying the president has all the tools in his hands to severely curtail scientific progress in the US, and so it is *necessary* for the president to understand those issues, if he's going to exercise that power.
the problem with bush is not that he doesn't know any science, but that he happily panders to his fundamentalist christian political base by advancing their agenda
You seem awfully sure of that. How do you know without asking him? Say, in a debate?
Ok, when even the person who made the statements calls the claims of cover up "ridiclous" you can't give them much weight.
And I love the attempt to blame Bush and Global Warming for the forest fires in California when in fact the leading contributors have been arson (now that's a form a man-made global warming we can all protest against) and the myriad of legal blockades various environmental groups have put up to prevent all levels of government from properly managing California's forests.
It's also a little telling about how much Ms. Boxer cares that she couldn't even spell Dr. Gerberding's name correctly throughout her letter.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
and they used their power to evil ends
and what the hell does that have to do with the importance of knowing science as a leader again?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you don't know every detail of tcp/ip protocols at the phd level. therefore, i find you unsuitable for posting on slashdot ...that's basically the same as what you just said about the presidency and science
that someone has to meet your random arbitrary and meaningless minimum requirements of scientific knowledge in order to lead a country
no, he just has to be a good leader
and being a good leader naturally includes delegating questions properly. questions involving legal minutaie, economic minutaie, policy minutaie, or scientific knowledge minutaie
oh look! the president doesn't know the names of the sultan of brunei's brother in laws! therefore he is unfit to lead!
that's the exact same sort of "standards" you wish to think matter
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
they did the YouTube debates, why not science debates? I know science questions are really hard, and the republicans haven't even heard of science, but it think they should do something like this... then again, it would probably just confuse everyone including Idiot America.
I don't really need my politicians to be scientists, to pass anything but 1990s-caliber college science requirements.
What I need is for them to moderate debates among scientists. They need to be able to tell when scientists have valid arguments, and which is superior, and when even superior arguments still can't be trusted.
Maybe what we need is to let each candidate score some debates among scientists as judges. When they disqualify arguments relying on evolution, the big bang, or "scientific consensus" on inconclusive but compelling science like Climate Change, they disqualify themselves. Then the few who are qualified to lead can explain their various grades, and leave it to the voters to decide which one to give the power to.
--
make install -not war
just not funny.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Personally, I really don't think that the "scientific consensus" is all that important. What matters is the factual observations. What is it that scientists observe that leads them to conclude that the age of the universe is on the order of 14 billion years?
There's also the issue of uncertainty.
I would hope that a non-scientist (or a scientist in a different field) would know three things. First, what the consensus is (to a precision that is likely to remain accurate as the consensus is refined). Second, how uncertain the consensus is. Third, what factual observations the consensus is based on.
In my view, though, the age of the universe is less interesting than more fundamental questions like why different observers observe different times for the same events (relativity) and whether time existed prior to the big bang.
you don't understand human nature
you talk about "reasonable, working knowledge of science". well what is that? know what a gene is? know what the homeobox gene is? know the relative prevalance of the homeobox gene across various species? what?
it's all arbirtrary, pointless, and unenforceable. your standards are meaningless, because they don't actually add anything to being a president, they don't ask valid questions
here's a vlaid question:
do i know enough about this subject matter to make this decision?
no?
ok, then i will delegate this question to a panel of university department heads
end of story. the 3 sentences above is a valid leadership scenario on the question of science
that's a good leader, to think those 3 sentences. and that is the only leadership quality that is needed on scientific, economic, geographic, legal, whatever issue: the ability to understand you don't know enough about a question, and a willingness to delegate when you recognize your limitations on questions involving academic minutiae
you're sitting there with your randomly determined need to know "x" amount of science
some economist is saying the same as you about economics
some law professor is saying the same as you about law
some sinologist or russian expert is saying the same thing about knowledge of china or russia
etc., etc.: the president is deficient in his knowledge of that, the president is deficient in his knowledge of this... zzz
none of you matter at all, because none of you are asking yourself the right questions: can this be delegated so i can focus on more important things?
in short, you're poor leadership material. because you don't even understand what leadership is about
it's not a game of "i am the all and powerful omniscient wizard of oz. i know all of string theory, punctuated equilibria, and the riemann hypothesis. therefor ei am good presidential material"
"but you don't know enough about real estate law in the state of connecticut!"
"oh yes, you are correct, i guess i wouldn't make a good president after all"
pffffffffffffft
leadership!=omniscience
you think it does
you lose
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Since when is the "democracy" we have here supposedly "self governance" ??
This is mob rule kids, its, whatever whiny bitches or group of whiny bitches whine the most get to set policy for those whom do not approve, nor have need of said policy.
Self rule involves calling your own shots for yourself, and only CHANGING those policies if they initiate the harm another (preferably of your own species, since inter species aggression is called predation, and its the #1 method of energy acquisition for carbon/water/meat bag-like organisms).
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Seems everybody is for it until they have to do it and then they are against it.
When we can't do something as simple and as fundamental as balance a budget or fairly tax ourselves, how on earth do we expect to actually discuss science? Seriously. It might be fun but that's all it would be, it's not like policy or anything would come out of it.
Jesus freaks can vote for the guy who says "6,000 years".
---
It is not only (some) Christians who do not buy evolution. Nice of you to reveal your bigotry though!
i am certain bush would pass your basic knowledge of science test with flying colors
but bush isn't hampered by lack of knowledge, bush is hampered by pandering to special interests: the avowedly antiscience fundamentalist right
there are two kinds of failures then on the question of failing science in leadership: stupidity and evil. stupidity is breaking the cookie jar by accident. evil is breaking the cookie jar on purpose
in other words, ignorance of science isn't the problem with bush. an active disavowal of it is. bush is evil on the question of science, not stupid
which sheds some further light on your constant unwavering problem when it comes to leadership and science: you see in bush stupidity, when there is really active evil at work
the truth: knowledge of science just doesn't f***ing matter. a complete and utter science moron could have a better science policy than a scientifically proficient but anti-science leader
in fact, here is such a case
do you really think the saudi king has a sound scientific education? in the most fundamentalist country in the world?
again, it's not the KNOWLEDGE that matters, it's the intent
you simply do not fucking understand what leadership, asd a subject matter, means. it's like we're talking about physics, and you insist on talking about chemistry. you'rew not wrong on the subject so much as you don't understand that what you are saying simply doesn't apply
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Quiz them on the constitution. Make them find the part that causes the president's opinions about or knowledge of science to matter. Then vote against the ones who think they have found that part.
All else being equal, if a die-hard fundamentalist creationist who thinks all the weather reports are fabrications, sets different policy than an atheist, then at least one of them is doing something wrong. And it's not necessarily the fundamentalist who has bad politics. (but seriously, yeah, it probably is. ;-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Survival of the planet isn't in the president's hands. It's in everyone's.
More generally: the government is not society. Questions about what "we" need (or want) to do, usually aren't matters for government. The government should be made up of "we", but we are not the government.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Who said anything about dogma? The current accepted theory about the origin of life on earth evolution. The majority of scientists accept this view." Of course evolution doesn't really say anything about the origin of life. It just explains the variety of life we see.
a good leader knows his limits and delegates
let's say bush knew ALL of the things you say he doesn't know. that would make him a good leader? so we send bush to military strategy schoo. suddenly he's going to come out of that and be a godo president? you believe that?
name one great president who passes your test:
"the president doesn't need to know any military strategy,
doesn't need to know anything about those strange foreigners,
doesn't need to know anything about finance,
doesn't need to know anything about the law,
doesn't need to know anything about diplomacy
doesn't need to know anything about policy."
FDR, lincoln, washington... i'll bet any president you choose fails at least 2 to 3 of those assertions, and fails on the science questions too
because good true leadership isn't about omniscience, about knowing everything, it's about knowing people, and leading them, and delegating when you realize something is outside of your scope of knowledge
bush, indeed, doesn't know much, but it's poor leadership skills he fails on, not not knowing these things
as for you, you fail it on knowing anything about what it takes to be a good leader
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
a good leader can go into a room, or on tv, or in front of a news reporter, and say something in such a way that the majority of people reading or hearing what he says find it compelling
it's an art form you apparently don't have an appreciation for. which is fine, but all that measn is you'll never be a leader, and you speak from a pov of ignorance on the issue of what leadership is, and so what you say doesn't mean anything
well, i'm not a very good football player. so if i sit here and say how stupid football is and how useless it is and how anyone could do it or how it doesn't matter, etc., will this negate the existence of football or the existence of people who are good at it?
that's what you do einstein, on the question of leadership
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Hillary will never, ever take questions that she hasn't seen in advance. In all of her so-called town meetings she went through the questions and chose the ones she wanted to answer. That's why the Democrats wouldn't debate on Fox. That's why you'll never see her interviewed by anyone who would ask the tough questions. Everything she does is scripted down to the last letter.
Science debate? Don't think so.
Go ahead -- flame away!
The fact is, politicians *are* insane. You just argue all the time, instead of doing anything productive. So please don't include me in your insane arguments - instead do something productive and I'm interested. ;)
"Time is nothing; timing is everything."
Yes, you're absolutely correct, I misstated, my apologies.
What ever happened to well educated (on multiple topics) politicians?
I am in support of a science debate for precisely this reason. There should be a *culture* of merit in our political system; politicians who are esteemed for their intelligence and contributions to thought. One has no way of knowing if a candidate is intelligent unless you get a real opportunity to observe them - preferably for more than a few sound bites or pre-ordained question-and-answers.
[Ego]out
because if you are not, your lack of understanding of what really matters in politics is profound. kind of like a politician declaring the earth to be flat
leadership has nothing to do with anything you think it does, and your test is about as applicable as a car driving test for a fishing boat captain
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Great point. And, in fact, since a lot of people don't have the requisite knowledge, I find myself wondering if what underlies this effect is that there is something comforting to them in choosing a leader who's willing to affirm that knowledge is, in fact, not something that's really needed to solve the problems facing us.
That's kind of a weird position for Republicans and Democrats to be in, since absent knowledge, one is really dependent on having the right things just happen for them. And yet the Republicans are the alleged party of self-reliance and the Democrats are the alleged party of dependency and non-self-reliance.
Also, the question of self-reliance is often portrayed by Republicans as a complaint that ordinary citizens should learn to be more self-reliant and not have to depend on Government for handouts. But there are other places self-reliance could help, too. How about the ability of a politician to be self-reliant, and not to have to depend on advisors and for "intellectual handouts" when they had not planned (i.e., "studied") well. We could create a kind of personal intellectual savings account (let's call it a "school" for short) that self-reliant people would be expected to contribute intellectually toward (i.e., "study for") throughout their lives, just in case there was a sudden catastrophe that could only be cured by a strong availability of banked knowledge.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
This debate would give no particularly useful information to choose the best leader, at the best it might embarrass some with inconsistent belief systems. The job of the President is to lead the country, not win a game of Jeopardy. The fact is that there is there is only one skill a President needs to make a correct decision, and that's judgement. Is it nice if the president knows about the middle east? Sure, but more importantly you want a leader who asks, and listens to, the person who knows everything about the middle east when they need to make a decision. I really feel that a leader who makes the best policy isn't necessarily the one who is the smartest or most knowledgeable, it's the one who knows how to get the correct conclusions from the smart and knowledgeable people.
I stole this Sig
Ron Paul's professed voting strategy during his 10 terms in Congress is to evaluate the bill against the Constitution, and to my knowledge he has not veered from this.
What parts of the Constitution do you think he ignores?
He took a scientific report saying that global warming and climate change were definitely caused by humans, and struck just the right words so that it said the opposite.
Is that the kind of person you want in office?
Think about all the policy implications that get changed there, not to mention the integrity implications.
Also: NASA funding for Earth observation has been cut. ie weather stuff like "where will that hurricane hit?" And "how bad is climate change?" This isn't just economic benefit. Unless you count short-term cost savings vs. long-term knowledge. And ignorance is expensive.
1) People building their $$$ houses in locations prone to natural disaster. This means we, the people, end up bailing them out.
Examples:
Low-lying ground prone to flooding, and/or near the coast and prone to storms. Mega-Cities on earthquake faults. Buildings on land prone-to landslide with great views and at the top of hills. Buildings in the middle of "nowhere", ie historically dry forest with limited road access. The fastest growing regions are also the ones prone to the costliest disasters. Most of which haven't happened yet. And probably once they do, we'll just rebuild and let it happen again.
Climate change in California has meant that we're getting more vegetation and dryer summers, giving us more stuff to burn. We've got a perpetual drought going on. I can't exactly blame that on Bush, but I think I can blame it on the Industrial Revolution.
We've also got a long time buildup of unburnt forest. So instead of lots of low-level tiny fires, we get a few big destroy-everything fires. Removing big trees won't fix this, you have to remove the brush and small "junk" trees that would have been destroyed in the smaller fires. This takes an incredible amount of people-power. This is not profitable for timber companies unless they can take a few big trees too. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find and enforce a balance.)
We'll get more forest fires, people will be stupid enough to rebuild their houses there, and all that smoke will hurt our climate. We lose.
The most free society is a state of anarchy. Lions and antelope live free. But before you wish for that, ask yourself realistically whether you would be an antelope or a lion.
Governments exist to create security, not freedom. Security in the nation, but also, in the case of a republic, security in person. Some of what people consider "freedom" is actually a form of security, for example the freedom to own property and live there as you wish. Well for most people this "freedom" would be impossible without the security provided by an orderly republic state. Without that, someone better armed would just exercise their freedom to take it.
Pure democracy is actually not a great system of government for security in person. It can easily tip into mob rule. Luckily what we have is a constitutional democratic republic. I know that's not as a good a soundbite, but I think it helps to be accurate when we're talking about something as important to us as government.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
n/t
I nearly threw up on my Monitor when that caption jumped out at me.
I don't see why a person who's never read the Constitution, and doesn't know the difference between the Bill of the Rights and the Ten Commandments, or has no understanding of the founding principles of the country, and what made it significantly different from the government we broke away from, should have an equal voice in running the nation.
Simple: it's because a majority of you lot voted for him in your last election!
A quiz or debate won't reveal anything except how good someone is at quizes or debates.
Lets go right to the heart of the issue and run a nerd (i.e. slashdotter) for President.
Hmmm, what sort of talking points should a Slashdot candidate have?
1) The candidate will issue an executive order declaring Microsoft and terrorist as synonyms.
2) Like Moses, the candidate will approach Apple and tell Job's "Let my Iphones go!"
3) The First Lady will probably BE the candidates first lady. The candidate is, after all, a nerd.
4) The candidate will promote a law requiring the producers of Stargate Atlantis to figure out how to get Samantha Carter of Stargate Atlantis into a bikini. I mean, 11 years of her character and practically no eye candy until the last season of SG-1. The writers apparently ENJOY torturing nerds.
5) In deference to America's security forces, the telco's will be allowed to continue wiretapping. However, the telco's must open source the wiretapping code and publish a sdk so users can extend it (Common, lets face it, slasshdotters, do you really think anything you say is of any interest to anybody except another nerd? )
6) If elected, the candidate will insist that our police forces will immediately be equipped with Star Trek Phasers and SG-1 Zat guns. Yes, I know those weapons are fictional, but if you listen to CSPAN, they are no more fictional than some of the real proposals that come up before the congress.
7) The candidate will demand a 1 year moratorium on new IT technology so everyone can catch up. And a significant proportion of the US budget will be devoted to providing decent, READABLE documentation for open source code.
8) Free Merakit broadband for everyone in America!
9) VC's have to register under the local leash laws.
10) Trolling and cyberbullying is a capital offense if you are not a nerd.
11) Free Safari subscriptions for everyone, and Safari has to add some better books. (especially in the area of algorithms. Yeesh. )
12) There will be at least 3 Major tech conventions a year in Chicago. Do you think every nerd lives on the West Coast? Besides, after the fires, the air quality is better there.
13) Meigs field will be reopened. It really ruins my enjoyment of Google Earth flight simulator to know it does not exist in the real world anymore.
14) To solve global warming, if it gets hot enough, the US will promise to bomb volcanoes until there is a new ice age. (If they miss St Helens and take out Microsoft instead, so much the better. These are slashdotters we are talking about, after all.)
15) The Sci Fi channel will be basic cable, not premium.
That's all I can think of. Anyone have any more idea's for demands the slashdot crowd might want?
I think evolution is true, but as the article states, SEVERAL republican candidates do NOT think it is true and they share this with a segment of the population.
Global warming is even worse then evolution. The US goverment denies it exist, or that if it exists is caused by mankind. YOU may think that is a load of bull BUT that is the official view of the republicans.
Therefore a question as you ask "what do you plan to do about global warming" is really no different then asking "what do you plan to do about your immortal soul" to an atheist. The question is loaded.
Let me ask you, how do you intend to make up for you shooting Kennedy? Note how this question gives you no room to even claim you are innocent of the act. Why would a person who is innocent of shooting Kennedy subject himself to this question?
Why would a creationist answer questions on evolution. Why would a global climate change (global warming is a lousy name) denier come up with plans to counter what he claims does not exist?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Taxes
The option to tax is not the requirement to tax. The income tax was temporary on the wealthiest 5% to pay for WWI, the entry into which by the U.S. has parallels to the unethical invasion of Iraq. Repealing the income tax would just put the U.S. back to between the founding of the Constitution and WWI.
Congress taking abortion out of the Supreme Court
Ron Paul explains the Constitutional basis directly in the bill:
where the Constitution says:The balance of power between the Legislative and Judicial branches has been debated since the founding of the country, but according to the wording of the Constitution too much power has been afforded to the Supreme Court for most of the country's existence.Health Care
There is no need for this to be handled at the federal level -- states can handle it just fine.
Global warming
I personally would stretch the commerce clause to cover the environment since air and water do not know state boundaries, but I can go with Ron Paul's approach of first having the federal government "do no harm", such as by eliminating corporate welfare to big oil. Boulder is suing the federal government over global warming due to its OPIC and Imp-Ex agencies, which do things like pay for oil pipelines in third world countries under the premise of providing economic development to the countries. Ron Paul has long stated he would like to eliminate OPIC and ImpEx.
Income disparity
Going on a gold standard, as Ron Paul advocates, would eliminate the hidden tax of inflation. As I've mentioned here before, I make 4x now as a seasoned professional than I did 20 years ago when I just graduated. Yet when using CPI computed according to pre-Greenspan formulas, it's 8% per year and I make less now than I did 20 years ago. Under a gold standard, wages would not automatically fall every year, and things like the minimum wage (which BTW should be at the state and local level, not the federal level) would not lag behind real prices.
In short
Ron Paul is for personal liberty, including the Iraqis and the pre-born. He does not believe liberty should be extended to illegal immigrants, but would like to expand legal immigration somewhat once the incentives for illegal immigration are removed: welfare, education, healthcare, and birthright citizenship.
Well, Since Hydrogen has but one newtron, Oxygen has 8 and Carbon has 6, you could do it a number of ways with a cyclotron:
Since D/R is fiscally (ir)responsible duopoly of parties, first the R's will spend $2 Billion of taxpayer money building of a SuperConducting Supercollider in Texas to help offset the economic ruin caused by a oil and housing bust, then D will promptly cancel it when it is 90% complete. Then D will occasionally send money to Switzerland to collaborate on their SuperCollider. R will try to destroy funding for that off chance the Swiss come up with fusion or something else that could ruin revenue for R's friends in the oil industry. Once the collider is more than 200% funded (i.e. ~ 50% built), you should have enough science or magnets or whatever it takes to smack a Hydrogen into the Oxygens at energy sufficient to occasionally cause a Helium 2 to fall off, leaving a few Carbon 6 atoms and a hell of a lot of radioactive waste which you send to Nevada and bury for a couple of million years.
Next question????
I am sure Bush knows the very basics of science, as any other college graduate.
The problem is not science, it is politics: politicians must find a way to enforce the policies that they think it serves their interests; religion is a very good way, because it touches a fundamental side of humans.
Of course, their interests might not be mine and your interests, and here lies the problem.
Wholesale brand-name shoes, T-Shirt, bags, jeans,hoodies, etc.If you are interested in our products,Please kindly visit our website: http://www.a-ok-nike.com/ You can obtain more information."Best Service, Highest Quality and Special Price"is our company principle.
here's a president before you who realizes everything you just say, believes and enforces the words you just wrote with strong conviction
oh shit! he doesn't know what a homeobox gene is! he can't be president!
get my point?
in fact, here's your leader... how wise on the ways of science do you think this fundamentalist is?
he's in the most fundamentalist country on earth, and yet he is more pro-science than bush!
the point is to delegate scientific knowledge, and embrace EXACTLY what you wrote above
you think what you wrote disproves my point. what you wrote IS my point
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Jefferson was an ignorant ninny. What could he possibly know about the Constitution?!?
(As I'm posting this from the University of Virginia, where worship of Jefferson is mandatory, I feel compelled to point out that, yes, this is sarcasm.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
First, I object to your underlying assumption that there are 'children' who are naturally incapable of being citizens. Why have an age 18 cut-off? It's my firm belief that the idea that "'at 18' we 'become adults'" is a culturally inculcated idea that is really not based in any sort of real empirical understanding at all. Plenty of fourteen year olds can probably pass any sort of test you come up with - why, then, should they be cut off until they're 18?
But this idea is in line with another erroneous idea you seem to hold; that tests, like age, might be a good predictor of citizenship (that is, citizenship-with-the-right-to-vote). Take two twins; identical in (nearly) every way. Smart, well-educated, from the same part of the country, wealthy. Both are capable of passing the hypothetical 'test'. One, however, is a total bastard. The other is not. The first will do anything, literally anything, to improve his own position - including voting for laws that are classically unwise, but might have a benefit for him.
How, then, is the test a good predictor that he is a good citizen? The fact of the matter is that most of the people you seem to be worried about - the uneducated, the unaware and the apathetic - are probably not voting anyway.
I don't know how, practically speaking, you can be for something that is not a good predictor of the outcome you want when it also stands a good chance of working counter to people who might have good qualities that you do want - such as regional understanding. (Do you really expect my friends from a backwater suburb in Oregon to understand the problems facing East-coast urban environments? Or vice versa?)
Never mind the potential you get once you start separating citizens for later amendments; oh, only second-class citizens pay taxes. You know, they're not doing anything else for the society like making decisions. Or only first-class citizens get to be on juries. Or whatever.
[Ego]out
Our country is really fucked up. The reason it's fucked up is because there's a minority in power that keeps stealing the power, and the majority of people in this country are really, really fucking stupid (as in uneducated).
Wow, there are so many totally unsupported generalizations in this sentence I need to enumerate them: 1) Our country is really fucked up. 2) There is only one reason it's fucked up. 3) That reason is that there is a minority in power. 4) That minority keeps 'stealing' the power. 5) The majority of people are really, really fucking stupid.
It sounds like you don't have a particularly articulated understanding of the world. Perhaps why you posted AC?
There's nothing wrong with voter discrimination as long as it's based on good reasoning.
The thing you have to affirmatively prove, then, is that there is a good reason. You claim that not letting people without certain historical or present knowledge is a good practice that will benefit all of society. Do you have any proof of that? Any ability to affirmatively show that's the case? Any case-law? Prior research? Or is it a gut-instinct or so-called 'common knowledge'?
We should not instate an intelligence-based test. The reasons are numerous and there is no provable benefit. But the biggest reason is that we have yet to really have come up with a good intelligence test. We're always testing for something, yes, but 'intelligence' is an ephemeral quality that we don't have a grip on yet. As such, at best we'd be testing meaningless specific knowledge ("What is Bill Clinton's middle name?"), at worst we'd be testing for race - or far more likely, class. Because the one thing that the 'minority in power' you refer to has universally that much of the rest of the country does not is education.
[Ego]out
Faux populist appeals aside, evolution is the best answer science has (meaning the best answer we have), and since science has given us air conditioning, the internet, medicine, sanitized food/water, etc, we can probably agree that science is important. If someone dismisses science because it conflicts with their personal religion, that matters.
This isn't really to see if Hillary or Mitt have an informed opinion on quantum mechanics or different types of speciation--it's to see if they are actually plugged into objective reality. It's a kook identifier. Sometimes people who appear to be perfectly normal reveal themselves to be just about crazy if you let them talk long enough.
what would be good is if each municipality in the States, elsewhere too of course, would form a committee to evaluate their ecological/carbon/other footprint, like do we need to leave the lights on at city hall for 24 hrs per day or how much petroleum do we use collecting garbage and so on. this presidential debate sounds nice but the result will be some sort of binary pissing match of tastes great versus less filling. all politics is local and so is biology.
this is a man from the most fundamentalist country in the world, putting his power and reputation on the line in the name of science
does he know what a homeobox gene is? the riemann hypothesis? punctuated equilibrium? cherenkov radiation?
probably none of that
and yet he shows incredieel devotion to science, out of simple policy and strategy, as a pure leader
fact: you don't need to know ANY science to be a leader of a country, and in fact, you can be a very pro-science leader and know very little. this man probably knows less science than bush, and bush pursues an actively anti-science agenda to court his fundamentalist base. how much science you know as a leader means ZERO
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"You are just a troll SIIHP."
In other words, I'm right and you can't refute me.
At least you admitted it.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
"This is what I live with every day"
FYP
"It is the last resort of a fool and a troll "
And since you did it first, that makes you both.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Let me get this right: it doesn't matter if the Prez is an ignorant twit, as long as he listens to "the right people"? Isn't that pretty much how we got into this Iraq quaqmire?
"Judgment" isn't a knack that you acquire through some mysterious magic process. It comes through education and experience. Being able to talk in a knowledgeable way about stuff relevant to your job is a pretty strong indicator that have the right E&E.
But what do I know? I'm just a shill for Fox.
With Jesus Christ on their side, the Republicans have nothing to worry about. Lets us pray Hillary wins.
Property for sale in Nice, France http://www.chezriviera.com