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."
What sort of physical conditions (pressure, temperature) would have to exist to produce carbon from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen? ;)
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.
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.
Exactly. If you want them to answer questions on science, DO prepare them with a list of topics ahead of time. At least that way you'll know when the question is asked who did their homework and developed an opinion, and who didn't. Their ability to develop an opinion on a topic is very important, as THAT is what they'll be doing as President.
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
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.
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
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 idiocy of the American public is the other half of the problem. The creationists deserve nothing more than unending ridicule and ostracism.
Shit, if it wasn't for the racial history, a simple test to see whether or not your vote would count would be a great benefit to this country. They wouldn't even have to be hard questions, just things like "does America have an official language", "does America have an official religion", and so on.
Care about privacy? Read this!
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.
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
Yeah, locking people out of the voting process because they fall below some standard you set makes for a great defence of democracy. Whatever happened to the Slashdot support for the American ideal that all men are endowed with inalienable rights regardless of what some elite says?
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."
These people are actively trying to destroy the separation of church and state. A simple test to see if people actually know the rules of the constitution would go a long way to ensuring that people stop getting elected on unconstitutional principles.
Care about privacy? Read this!
For instance, some questions could be asked on subjects like...
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
The basic problem would be that the Rebublican candidates would never want to try to compete in a debate like this. It practically seems like a matter of party idealogy to ignore science, and respond with appealing to the public's feelings, or religious alternatives, rather than admitting the value of science, and the facts it delivers to us. When it comes to global warming, evolution, and stem cell research-- the biggest science-related issues up for discussion this cycle-- the Democrats clearly side with the science.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
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.
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
Ah, so the right to self-governance only extends to people who agree with your principles, then. Excellent.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I don't give a rat's ass about democracy. I care about freedom. Democracy is merely a means to an end.
Care about privacy? Read this!
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?
Sure, you've got an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never supported the right to vote among those, though.
If you move to the United States from another country, you have to pass a test before you can vote. Passing said test will put you far ahead of the average high school graduate in knowledge of American government and history. I've got no problem with requiring the same test even of those born here.
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.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
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."
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.Sigh... what a waste
"
- The place of Evolution in public education
- The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths
- The impact and possible solutions to global warming
- The benefits and moral implications of stem cell research
- The importance of spending money on pure science
- The direction for institutions such as NASA
"
"The responsibility of a President not to distort scientific truths"... why restrict this to scientific truths? what about fiscal, legal, and ethical truths... #2 belongs in a general debate because if you'll lie about scientific data you'll lie about employment data *and* vice versa..
"The impact and possible solutions to global warming" this impacts Business, Environment, and even states rights and that is the aspect the is actually important to from the citizens perspective General debate
"The direction for institutions such as NASA" NASA also has other aspects to it other than scientific, this is again economic and the like
"Stem cell research" Science can be morally and ethically neutral, this issue can not as much as some want to separate this from the Abortion / Life debate it cant be done
Yore left with science funding and evolution in education (and even that has a serious states rights aspect to it)... You really want a debate focused on those two things?
Frankly I find issue centered debates to be a tad worthless its nice to make candidates say in the same debate 'Im going to do X and Y and Z' where the law of limited resources has some importance.
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
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
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html
I wish I had mod points, mod parent up! I for one would love to live under your benevolent dictatorship. To clear up than any ambiguity over if this post is sarcasm, let me reiterate the point the parent was making, Democracy isn't a goal, it's a means to an end, and that's freedom. It's the best tool to ensure freedom that we have today but let's not forget that it's just a tool to achieve freedom, don't enshrine it, and don't right off the idea that there may be better ways of achieving a free society.
A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
n. ????
n+1. PROFIT!
You missed a choice...
$) I weren't never no monkey!!
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Federal support for basic research, in the form of the NSF (National Science Foundation), NIH (National Institutes of Health) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has helped (along with private industry, which capitalizes on these advances) to make the United States the world leader in scientific research, and I would argue that this has been critical to the economic and military strength of the U.S. over the past fifty years. It was DARPA, a federal agency, that came up with the Internet after all.
But the Bush Administration does not appreciate the importance of science to the continued success of the nation. The current administration has cut the budgets for the NSF and NIH and pushed DARPA away from its basic research mission, even as they spend tens of billions on foolish schemes like missile defense and invading Iraq. And they refuse to listen to science when it doesn't agree with their agendas on issues like climate change or sex education. They're killing the goose that lays the golden egg, refusing to fund the basic research that helps make the country a success while wasting tens of billions of dollars on missile defense, the Iraq war, and tax cuts for people who make $200,000 a year or more. Meanwhile, China has massively expanded its spending on universities and research.
I've talked to one scientist who has expressed anything like support for the Bush administration. One. And I'm a scientist, so I talk to a lot of scientists. I think that's pretty goddamn telling. Admittedly, scientists do tend to be fairly left-wing as a whole, so they'd probably bitch even about a sane, moderate Republican, but Republican or Democrat, I think the next president has to realize that basic research is an investment in the future of our country.
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.
As an atheist (and moreover, a rational human being), I believe that people who deny evidence presented before their very eyes should never be allowed influence over anything bigger than a Tonka truck.
I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing in a God. What I have a problem with is people committing the scientific equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "lalala I'm not listening". The earth is not young. Evolution happens. It's your problem to reconcile this with your religion.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
Each candidate could send the person to the debate who they would appoint as National Science Adviser.
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.
We will consult with the lawyers to see if combining Hydrogen and Oxygen is allowed under the law.
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
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
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.
You realize that these were exactly the arguments made in favor of the Jim Crow laws regarding voting in the south after the Civil War, right? The laws that were written to ensure "voter competance" but were really designed just to exclude a whole class (and at that time, race) of people?
Voter disenfranchisement mean anything to you?
This time around are you going to write some grandfather clause to make sure you don't have to take the test, too?
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
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.
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
All laws will only apply to particular groups of people. 'Criminals and such are fair game [to discriminating laws]' - criminals are defined by law so that argument becomes circular. Vehicle speed limit laws will only affect speeders. Homicide laws only affect murders. 'You must be Christian' laws only affect non-christians etc, smoking laws (as in ireland and the UK) only affect smokers, etc.
Democracy as we know is simply a horribly crude majority rule. Democracy has to have conservative mechanisms to protect the rights of minorities.
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
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????
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.