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."
The last study I heard said that almost half of americans believe that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago. What may turn you off to a candidate may make him more appealing to others.
A temperature of around 10^8 K should suffice, such that the hydrogen not only fuses into helium, but the triple-alpha process becomes efficient, fusing helium into carbon. The oxygen is largely irrelevant, unless T approaches ~10^9 K, when the C-N-O cycle can happen. The pressures are not so important as the relative abundance of He to H which determines whether triple-alpha takes place. Stars much smaller than the Sun are unlikely to undergo He burning, so a pressure of at least 10^15 dyne cm^-2 is recommended. Vote Robot Nixon!
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 interest is in seeing what kind of policies and scientific boards they will set up. The Bush policies of putting corporate managers on Science Councils, re-writing scientific papers and presentations, hiding scientific facts, discouraging education that promotes critical thinking is nose diving the US into technical ignorance. What is the % of foreign born and educated scientists in any research company in the US? From my personal experience it is the majority. US policy has been such that we no longer produce or retain sufficient scientists to keep up with the rate technical innovation. The US technology is no longer even keeping up with Japan and South Korea even with its size and technical inertia.
I can't speak for anyone but me, but if Stevens had simply referred to "tubes", I would have let it slide. Referring to "tubes" is simply a shorthand to the whole dumbassed speech, which included him "getting an internet from an aide". An "internet" that didn't reach him for days, because the "tubes were clogged up".
Last post!
I suspect that Ron Paul will participate in forthcoming debates. He has already participated in major media-sponsored debates, and he has been raising impressive amounts of money. He ended the last quarter with over $5 million cash on hand raised mainly from individual contributors. He is getting hard to ignore, and he is going for the Republican nomination instead of running as an independent.
Ralph Nader, on the other hand, hasn't much of a chance given that he is not (to my knowledge) going for a major party nomination. It's a shame that third parties are marginalized in the electoral process.
Brute force didn't work for the Cahtolic Church; why should it work for us?
Interesting that you bring up the Catholic Church, since it accepts evolution as fact. And this from a group generally thought of as very conservative.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Actually, it was put into place to balance the states AND give a buffer between the people and who is elected President. The founding fathers intended the House to be the only popularly elected branch on purpose: they didn't trust people.
... desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the [office of the Presidency] ... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." - Hamilton, Federalist #68.
There is a reason we're not a Democracy. People are dumb. The authors of the Constitution knew that, and put layers of separation in place. It is actually a pretty nice compromise between Aristocracy and Democracy.
"It was
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.
Right because you're progressive enough to think that people who believe something other than you should be shut out of the government..
Whoa. I think his point was that people in those positions hold a lot of power. That power can been used to influence the populace and economy as a whole. With the stroke of a pen, one could decree that an entire generation of kids be taught incorrectly that the earth is less that 10000 years old.
Governing a country to ensure that it's citizens are properly educated to sustain the society in the real world is totally separate from your religious beliefs. As long as administrators operate in the fact-based realm then it's fine if they're religious too.
Put another way, just keep Sunday school limited to Sundays and everything's cool.
George W. has done more damage to the United States in the last 6 years than just about any President in history with the possible exception of Lincoln and that was just because he presided during the Civil War. He might rival Hoover another free market Republican whose term ended in the Great Depression.
..... well .... he is a Republican. He is not alone, a lot of life long Republican's are equally disgusted with President Bush.
You are confusing "smart" with "powerful". George W. is certainly "powerful" mostly because he, or more probably Karl Rove, was "smart" at getting elected.
You can be powerful and dumb, especially thanks to the increasing stupidity and susceptibility to manipulation of the American voter.
All in all I would take my life over George W's any time, because I'm not responsible for killing hundred's of thousands of people for no particularly good reason. I haven't poured $800 billion down a rat hole in Iraq, I also haven't created trillions in dollars of national debt, nor have I helped drive the U.S. dollar in to the toilet. He's managed to make pretty much the entire planet hate him in particular and America in general and that was after the whole planet was on our side after 9/11.
"So, while I appreciate your totally partisan attack"
Not sure you could call it a "partisan" attack. That would imply I'm in a party, presumably the opposition party, in the first place. That wasn't a partisan attack, that was just calling a spade a spade. The alternative the Democrats are offering in the Congress at the moment isn't really any better than George W.gives us in the White House. I seriously doubt Hillary will be an improvement unless she let's her husband run things behind the curtain. As reviled as Bill Clinton was the country was in a whole lot better shape under him, compared to the shambles its in thanks to the nitwit in charge now. Bill Clinton was indisputably smart and curious.
For proof, you need to look no further than Alan Greenspan's recent biography. He has worked with both George W. and Clinton for an extended period and he pretty much said exactly what I said. By any measure George W. is not smart or curious. If you want to call Greenspan's attack Partisan
There isn't anything George W's done in the last seven years I can think of that history will call a success.
@de_machina
I believe one has to be US-born in addition to being a US citizen...
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.
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.