US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies

sciencehabit notes that the US House of Representatives has allotted an additional $337.5 million in budget increases divided amongst four science agencies. NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science will each receive an additional $62.5 million, and the National Institutes of Health will receive $150 million. The money will help to offset the decision to reduce budget increases earlier this year. Early plans for the money include the training of new math and science teachers, and another reprieve for FermiLab's financial troubles.

Comments

Spending that in Iraq every day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somthing like that...

$300 million sounds impressive

[Jonathan]

But it's not. I'm on grants totalling over $1 million myself. If we could avoid land wars in Asia (so presciently predicted by Wallace Shawn in _The_Princess_Bride_), we could have billions to spend on science.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[BWJones]

Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Shikaku]

I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[sokoban]

I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

Do something where you use that kind of money to do meaningful research. This past year for example I was working on a small molecule X-ray setup which cost over $500k just in equipment.

Also, writing grant proposals helps.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[FriendComputer]

The small company I work for goes through the http://www.sbir.gov/ program. It includes grant solicitations from DOD, NIH, and others. It can be pretty cutthroat but we've been doing okay funding R&D activities with it for almost 10 years.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[joocemann]

Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

I think the results would be *AMAZING* to see if the opposite were true. Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology, and $300m goes to the DoD. Think about that... Think long and hard about what could change, what huge serious things we could actually accomplish when we focus on something other than war.

Yes, its hard to imagine not killing others for some reason or another; we can do it. Seriously think about just chilling back and watching huge amounts of your cash go somewhere productive.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Jonathan]

I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

Basically you go to the web site of a relevant funding agency like the NSF and look at their current "call for proposals". Once you find one that is relevant to what you want to do, you write a proposal detailing what you want to do, how much it will cost, and why it is important. In practice you should either have a doctorate in a relevant field or be well on the way to getting one before writing a grant. Also, it helps if you are working at university or research institute because such places have grants offices that can give you advice on how much things are likely to cost. This is important because an unreasonably high or low budget is likely to doom a grant proposal.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology, and $300m goes to the DoD. You went to far. Your Department of Defense needs a _lot_ of money for providing adequate defense. Think of what it takes to maintain just a single aircraft carrier. The problem is that what you call the Department of Defense is currently not practicing defense but rather offense. Restrict them to strictly defensive roles, and you will save enough to fund whatever science you like.

But don't forget, especially in war, the best defense is often a strong offense.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anpheus]

Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.

As nice as it is that we can just roll over whatever dinky (or even not-so-dinky) country in the world because our military spending is through the roof, it isn't even necessary. We don't need more soldiers, we need smarter, better ones. We need soldiers that understand the role they are in, and commanders that are going to lead them by example in doing so. I mean no slight to our armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in other conflicts past and current. Rather, the enemy has changed, and our military has not. We still have overwhelming firepower, for what? We don't need to take out a city, we need to find the -one guy- who wants revenge, who has some political or religious vendetta against us.

Instead we send boys off to their death, to risk life and limb against an uncertain adversary. And for what? They're so terrified out there because they well and truly never know when their life will end abruptly that they are close to snapping. We have soldiers coming out and bravely admitting some of the criminal activities that are occurring with the complicit support of their commanders. Drop weapons are placed on the bodies of innocent civilians to hide the fact that they were killed merely because they appeared threatening. Mosques are shot at out of revenge, not because of apparent threat. These boys and girls we are sending are ill-prepared to deal with the fact that people around them are dying for no reason whatsoever in a pointless ground conflict that has no apparent end.

I'd be terrified too. I'd probably want revenge too if some faceless Arab took my friend's life suddenly and with the utmost cowardice through the use of something like an IED. Every single day I'd have to decide whether or not I think that guy walking towards me might be wearing an explosive belt. Every day I'd have to live with the fact that I don't know the people around me, I can't understand them, and that my target is going to look exactly like a civilian.

Offense is not what we need, we need strategic and tactical advantage. We don't have it. We're fighting Joe Arab.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[khallow]

Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.

You didn't ask me, but yes, the US would hold off on the nukes when we're fighting someone with similar nuclear weapon firepower. 20 years ago the USSR had that power. 20 years from now there probably be other nuclear powers. It's not static.

I'd be terrified too. I'd probably want revenge too if some faceless Arab took my friend's life suddenly and with the utmost cowardice through the use of something like an IED. Every single day I'd have to decide whether or not I think that guy walking towards me might be wearing an explosive belt. Every day I'd have to live with the fact that I don't know the people around me, I can't understand them, and that my target is going to look exactly like a civilian.

The classic projection argument. Pretend it's something you'd do, and that somehow makes the argument true. Then again, maybe you would do this, which means that it's a good thing you aren't serving in the US military.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that. Aircraft carriers are used to launch aircraft, which are used to drop bombs, which are used to neutralize threats that are located in a place where sending in ground troops is either unacceptably dangerous or impractical. Do you think that you have no enemies in such locations?

You seem to think that only large, nuclear-armed states can hurt you.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[TamCaP]

No way! I am a scientist myself (not even an armchair scientist) and I know that if NSF of NIH got suddenly, lets say, extra 100 billions - there would be no way to spend it!

It's not like there is a machine where you put money it and it outputs scientific truths on the other side. Science is not about throwing lots of money at once - it's a long distance thing. You need skilled manpower, you need equipment (that has to be produced) etc. etc.

DO increase the budget, use billions to do that, but don't expect that the year you throw 100 billions on science you will suddenly cure cancer. However, a promise of extra 5 billions, guaranteed and inflation adjusted for the next 20 years, would FOR SURE make a difference.

Of course, if you decide to give science extra 100 billions for the next 20 years, I won't protest either :)

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[The Spoonman]

As nice as it is that we can just roll over whatever dinky (or even not-so-dinky) country in the world

We can? Then why is it we're still in Iraq five years after the mission's been accomplished? Air support is the best way to protect ground troops and you need aircraft carriers to get them to places like Iraq.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[silentcoder]

>But don't forget, especially in war, the best defense is often a strong offense.
Aaah yes, that old one. Everybody knows that the best defense is a good offense... since when ? When did we ever actually prove this ?
This reminds me of another quote:"We must retaliate before they have the chance to strike !"

Just because people have believed something for thousands of years does not make it true. Hell most of the people here tend to dismiss all religion out of hand as stupidity simply because they don't hold with the idea of believing something based on authority alone.
Yet many of those same people will perpetuate the very ideas that are the reason we (as in, the entire human race) seem to be in a permanent state of war now.
I actually think that some wars, some of the time are in fact needed. War is usually the only way to free slaves, overthrow tyrants or reverse severely exploitive social structures (point to ponder - the quality of life of the poor in modern first world countries are probably slightly worse than that of the average peasant before the French revolution, and that of the rich is massively higher so the discrepancy is far greater - if our new class system leads to a global revolution by the poor we really have only ourselves to blame and it's not so far fetched, watching the news it's clear that the first scuffles have already started)

I suppose we cannot live without military just yet - but it really should be purely for defensive purposes... if the US (and every other country) only ever struck out against those who attacked them - just enough to prevent further attacks we would see the end of all wars within a decade. But the 'lets destroy the country that attacked us' mentality just leads to more and more people who are motivated to now attack you(us) in return.

So no, the best defense in war is probably never a good offense. The best defense is to make an attack impossible (for 'terrorism' you do that with better law enforcement, not with soldiers, for armies, you do it just by having soldiers - there is no need for those soldiers to be deployed otherwise - they just need to exist so that if an army invades they can chase them back out of the country again).
Where you cannot prevent attacks how about we let the soldiers do what the police have always done ? Same rules. That means that the military as a whole is restricted to minimum necessary force.
If we were truly focussed on defense only, the US could use a military 1/10 of what the US has. South Africa would never have been able to get that arms deal passed no matter how many ministers were bribed because we simply didn't need all those big gunships. Anybody who invades us is almost certainly going to be from the north and that will be over land. We already had the strongest military on land in the region years ago.

The problem is, we don't focus on defense. The US in particular does not. In fact, they don't even pretend to anymore. The US has never in the last 50 years for one day not had soldiers deployed somewhere in a foreign nation fighting somebody. In the greater majority of cases you were deposing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with military dictators because you didn't like the policies of politicians who thought they should act in the interests of their citizens rather than your politicians! Nicaragua and Brazil weren't even the worst of it.

Of course, those people whom you condemned to decades of oppression and suffering don't really like you very much today - and believe me they know who is to blame. They know who destroyed their freedom.
Sorry, I don't buy the idea that you can defend your freedom by taking freedom away from the citizens of other nations. All you've done is created thousands of countries where everybody knows you as the oppressors, or the people who put the oppressors in place as your puppets... I'll bet that kind of global ill feeling makes it so much easier for your enemies to hide and recruit new members.

So while I agree that a de

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[The Spoonman]

Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology

Extrapolating...extrapolating...okay, we've jumped from 20% efficiency of solar cells to over 40% in the last 5 years or so with just a couple of million dollars being spent by companies in research. I'd say we could easily hit the "magic" 80% mark with just a fraction of that money, which would completely eliminate the need for any other kind of energy source AND have enough money left over to rebuild the infrastructure to implement it. This would eviscerate the monetary stockpiles of our "friends" the Saudis who are funding a large portion of the terrorism and spark a new age of financial independence for the US. We might even be able to build artificial lakes with palm tree islands and indoor ski resorts in our own deserts with the money saved!

Naah, I think I'm happier sending kids off to their death to protect some rich white guy's shares in the oil industry. That seems more American to me. I mean, just think...if the kids manage to come home alive with most of their limbs, they'll be able to afford a community college education with their GI Bill money and thus earn a subsistence wage in a cubicle until they die.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mako1138]

Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[ultranova]

Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower to wipe the floor with any real nation that decided to oppose us. Are you seriously suggesting that if we engaged in a war where aircraft carriers were truly necessary and -under threat- that we would hold off on the nukes? We'd have to face an actual military foe for that.

Unless everyone who has a say in that is crazy or a moron, then yes, you would. The second you launch nukes, you drag the rest of the world into the war. Even if they hold off from launching their nukes on you - which isn't at all certain, because nuclear fallout will harm them, and you can't really be certain where a missile is going until it goes kaboom - you have pretty much signed your own death warrant, either in the war or in the economic and diplomatic fallout afterwards.

Nuclear weapons are only good to prevent others from using them on you. Launching a nuclear offense against anyone in a world there others hold nukes too is a suicide.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't ask me, but yes, the US would hold off on the nukes when we're fighting someone with similar nuclear weapon firepower. 20 years ago the USSR had that power. 20 years from now there probably be other nuclear powers. It's not static. The USA and USSR where never actively in conflict. Only covert actions were taken, if the USA or USSR had launched a full on conventional war then I would not be typing this right now and humanity would be completely over.

The classic projection argument. Pretend it's something you'd do, and that somehow makes the argument true. Then again, maybe you would do this, which means that it's a good thing you aren't serving in the US military. That's absurd anybody put into a situation where their life is at stake constantly from an enemy they do not understand, from an enemy who hates them more than they value their own life, would clearly be extremely scared and would do anything necessary to survive.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[KasperMeerts]

Offence is not the best defence, defence isn't either. The only way to stop this is by stopping killing people.

Some may call me naive, but the truth is: they're naive. They think this can be solved by killing people. By doing what we did for 8000 years. Because it helped all those years...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[DarkOx]

Well see the problem is some of us are afflicted with ethics. We know civilians and otherwise innocent individuals are always harmed in wars. Still with an army, aircraft carriers, jet fighters, and other conventional wepons we can by and larger restrict or killing to other military and offensive targets. That is difficult to do with a nuke! Spending what we spend on defense means that we won't find ourselves "under threat" it means we won't have to use a neuclear device against an enemy, and all the unfortunity people that happen to be anywhere near them. That is a good thing.

You can argue that we have miss used are other forces as of late. I don't think any of our middle east efforts were wrong personally. I think Rumy's tactics were bad. We should have gone to Iraq with a decent size force to begin with and gotten control quickly and never allow this insurgency time to develop. That would have been difficult though because the privous administration so weakened or forces. It allowed us to ballance or budget without cutting our domestic pork it made the economy look real good until oops we needed our forces; drat!

The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact. The best you can say is other methods might also have worked. The truth is that even though its been expensive in terms of millitary assets ( inclusive of people ) it has kept the Islamafacists busy over there such that they have not been able to plan or execute a successful attack here, or at the very least attacking us at home has not been a priority for them.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Yvanhoe]

and that 35 billions "disappeared" in the Operation Iraq Freedom...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[silentcoder]

Well if your spelling, grammar and generally well articulated views are indicative of the quality of your education and critical thinking skills then your views must be well thought-out and considered.
I am not trying for an ad-hominem attack actually. That would be the case if I said that being stupid also automatically makes you wrong. What is true though is that if you pay the same amount of attention to the world around you as you do to expressing yourself clearly then quite frankly it is physically impossible for your opinions to not be ill-informed.

Bush's popularity rating is at a record-low for any president EVER. Lincoln had more support during the CIVIL WAR than Bush has today ! Even the many people who fell for his propaganda when the war was launched has since realized they were duped... you apparently have not... maybe it's wrong but when I read your writing style I see a case of either extreme stupidity or (worse) extreme laziness... neither makes me inclined to take your opinions very seriously.

Everyone makes the occasional typo but your post reads more like badly transcribed pseudo phonetics than English spelling ! I say badly because 'our' and 'are' doesn't even sound the same - yet you confused them consistently several times. If they sound the same in some regional dialect you speak, I highly recommend learning a little about the world beyond a three-block radius of your house.

Oh and for the record: Islamafacists is not a word - if it was a word it would be prejudicial. What's worse, it's not only prejudicial but stupid as it seems to imply that facism is somehow caused or encouraged by Islam. Odd because the philosophies of Al Queda are not inline with mainstream Islam and mind you is very different from Mussolini's philosophies... so the people you are were referring to are neither Islamic nor Fascists.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[bsDaemon]

In WW2, if Germans were using a 1000-year-old cathedral tower for observation or sniping, we blew it up. For some reason, we don't shoot at mosques.

In WW2, we carpet bombed cities, and eventually just nuked the Japanese. Now we use "smart bombs" and are affraid of "collateral damage."

on Iowa Jima, in the space of a week, the US Marines suffered over 26,000 casualties including almost 7000 dead. We have lost just over 4000 or so (i haven't been keeping up) in Iraq in 5 years, and people think that's an unacceptably high loss.

The problem in Iraq isn't military, its political, and its not in Iraq, its on the cable news.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Yvanhoe]

Finding a cure to an illness is a hard and long work that could benefit from a budget extension but the most obvious thing I see is that we have cure to many illness that still kill MILLIONS in the world. The only illness the world has ever been able to eradicate is smallpox, thanks to an unprecedented USSR-USA partnership. Now the WHO, after half a dozen failed attempt at eradicating other illness, considers it doesn't have the budget to succeed in a new illness eradication campaign.

I tell you, if you have too many billions to spend, a "war on malaria" or a "war on leprosy" funded with 20% of the Operation Iraqi Freedom budget could restore the US image in the world, decrease poverty, increase education and suppress some causes of terrorism.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Yvanhoe]

Aaah yes, that old one. Everybody knows that the best defense is a good offense... since when ? When did we ever actually prove this ? This is a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Yvanhoe]

The budget of the Iraq war can be considered as a 100% (ok, let's be conservative and say that it was 5% defensive) offensive effort.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Hubbell]

Once you started typing this response you lost.
You especially lost when you started saying that the soldiers are scared and crying in a corner cause they might die. We've lost what, 4000 or so in 4 years? That number is so fucking small if any of those soldiers are scared of dieing they need to get the shit kicked out of them. You are more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street than a soldier in Iraq is to get killed or injured.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Yvanhoe]

Who was a famous general and dictator.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem in Iraq isn't military, its political, and its not in Iraq, its on the cable news.

No, the problem is that we're in a war built on LIES. As a former Republican (I backed McCain in '00) I look forward to the Republicans going down in flames in the next election.

If the semi-retarded president now in office had allocated the same amount of resources to Afghanistan as he has Iraq we'd have mopped up the problem. The use of the locals in Tora Bora was so stupid that it's breathtaking. Of course, they really don't want the "War on Terrrrr" to end, now do they? Huddle! Be scared! More money for DOD and the contractors!

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[timeOday]

The big problem with the WWII analogy is that we are now the other side. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they needed oil. The difference is they were trying to break up the oil embargo we imposed on them, whereas Iraq was not imposing an oil embargo on us. And obviously Japan didn't invade Texas and take the oil to "repay" Japan for the cost of the invasion. So, yeah, the problem is political. You can't win when there are is no reason to be there and no criteria for victory, and your losses are already more than you could possibly gain.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dreamchaser]

It is an increase of $300 million. The $300 million is hardly the total budget.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[silentcoder]

>Who was a famous general and dictator.

Since when does that mean he was right ? In fact, since what he is famous for was trying to conquer the world (and nearly succeeding) through war of conquest I would say that he is probably the last person whose opinions on defense I would trust. Napoleon never thought a defensive war in his entire life. Wars of conquest are by definition offensive.
So he certainly couldn't have been describing the kind of defense that worked for him.
Maybe he meant the kind of defense that worked AGAINST him ? But that doesn't rhyme either... he was defeated ultimately at Waterloo - in Britain, who was fighting a defensive war. They didn't attack him in France to defend against him. That counts as the only time he was ever defeated because the defeat was so total that he ended up imprisoned on Elba with his French empire in tatters by the end of it.

So basically, how the hell would he know ? The only example he ever saw of a successful defense was NOT a case of a good offense ! Did it ever occur to anybody that when a man is busy conquering the world you really should take any advice he has on how to defend yourself with a pacific-ocean load of salt ? After all he had everything to lose by teaching the world how to defend themselves well... but on the other hand he he had everything to gain by teaching the world how to defend themselves poorly.

Like I said... authority won't impress me, I asked if anybody could PROVE it. In fact, if you think about it, it's probably an unprovable claim because you cannot rerun history with different parameters to compare the results.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mh1997]

Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

As an engineer for the DoD I ask, what makes you think the DoD is not spending R&D money on science and technology. I am involved in a 5 year $300 million project (unclassified) that is doing R&D on alternative energy sources.

My project (and other DoD research programs that I know of) is not counted in "science and technolgy" funding, but is in the big DoD budget.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[hey!]

This is the kind of thinking that gets us into trouble.

Imagine that funding is like water, and it flows through various pipes. Now imagine users of funding for some particular purpose are hooked up through those pipes through small diameters hookups, because they are organized around the assumption that they have to make do with, say, 100 gallons/day. Their interior plumbing is all designed around using on that order of water a day.

Now, you tell them, "I'm going to give you 10,000 gallons per day, for the next month." They don't have time to reorganize their water usage; they can barely use more than 120 gallons per day, and even that would be a challenge in the short run. Even if they could reorganize to use 10,000 gallons per day, by the time they were close to finished they'd be back down to 100. So they rush to put safety releases that throw away 9,890 gallons. They realize that it's a shame that 9890 gallons are being wasted, but that way they at least get ten extra gallons to do something productive with. In truth, they'd be more productive if you offered them 120 gallons instead of 10,000 gallons, and they'll be lucky to get as much good done as if you'd left them alone.

Lest you think this is some kind of theoretical model, let me assure you I've been part of this kind of scenario, as a vendor working with low levels of government groups where the rubber meets the road, and having that work suddenly become a political priority.

Most of the groups saw no money, because it would have taken too long to figure out how to get it to them. Where they did, they couldn't use it to extend their programs, because it was a one time windfall, so they went on a buying spree, going for more expensive equipment even if less expensive would have served them better. Probably 95% of the money was diverted at higher levels where it was funneled to vendors who didn't have any specific domain expertise, but were equipped to absorb large amounts of federal funding rapidly. In some cases mid level organizations, unable to get the funding onto the ground fast enough, spent money on support systems for the lower level. This wasn't a bad strategy, but the people didn't know how much the things they were buying should cost, and didn't have time to find out. The results were sad, but predictable.

Even if getting 10x the work done costs 10x as much (which it may or may not), you can't get 10x the work done by spending 10x as much, much less 100x as much.

It would make more sense to take that 10x money and put it in escrow, dolling it out in a bell shaped curve over five years or so, peaking in year 3. If you had 100x the money, it would make sense to take it and create an endowment that ensured more money would be spent annually.

I'm a political liberal. I think the government should spend money on all kinds of important public priorities, such as public health, scientific research and so on. However, since supporting these priorities is important to me, I'm keenly aware that there isn't enough money to do everything we'd want. Every penny wasted on something, even if that thing is itself important, deprives another priority of a penny. Sometimes the priority starved can even be the priority on which the penny was spent.

The Federal Budget should be organized into an operational budget and a capital budget, and operational costs should be paid for out of current revenues. Capital expenses can be paid for out of deficit spending, but crash programs on capital expenses should be discouraged by limiting growth in any capital category to a fixed percentage, say 20%.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we don't need it. It's mostly for show. We have enough nuclear firepower[...] Nukes.

You're seriously suggesting nukes??

Didn't we learn about 50 years or so ago in a little thing called the Cold War that nukes are really not a good thing afterall?!???

Mutually assured destruction, look it up sometime.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[TamCaP]

eradicating a disease - that's healh policy topic, not much to do with science finding cure for a disease - science Scientists will never eradicate a disease - politicians and administrators will (if they want to, and the scientists give them methods to do that).

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[The Spoonman]

Now we use "smart bombs" and are affraid of "collateral damage."

Yes, because we've come to realize that simply attacking and destroying the military bases without hitting the schools next to them is just as effective as blowing up everyone and letting "god" sort 'em out.

4000 or so (i haven't been keeping up) in Iraq in 5 years, and people think that's an unacceptably high loss.

One is an unacceptable loss in this war since we're only doing it so Gee, Dubya can finally feel like he's earned his father's approval after being a loser fuckup all of his life.

It's also nice that it;s not important enough for you to "keep up with", but important enough for you to try and justify. Perhaps if your family contained one of the 4415 (the last known name we have is a 21 year old kid named Jason Cox from Elyria, OH) soldiers, 435 contractors or the unknown tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis killed you'd pay more attention?

The problem in Iraq isn't military, its political, and its not in Iraq, its on the cable news.

No, it's that we let the clueless and ignorant vote and we end up with people like Gee, Dubya.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[c6gunner]

We don't need more soldiers, we need smarter, better ones.

Your ignorance is embarrassing. The average US soldier today has a better mix of training, equipment, and access to intel and support than any in history. You should stop listening to Jon Carray and his "ounly damb pplz becum suljers" rants.

Rather, the enemy has changed, and our military has not.

Yes, I hear armchair generals like you spouting such nonsense on a daily basis. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Here, I'll give you an analogy you can understand: It's like a pro-NFL player opining that the threat of script kiddies has changed, yet computer administrators have done nothing to adapt to the circumstances.

Offense is not what we need, we need strategic and tactical advantage. We don't have it. We're fighting Joe Arab.

Cute use of buzz-words, but it's pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to cite a reference for that?

If not, then I must claim it.

- anonymous

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[flyingsquid]

We've lost what, 4000 or so in 4 years? That number is so fucking small if any of those soldiers are scared of dieing they need to get the shit kicked out of them. You are more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street than a soldier in Iraq is to get killed or injured.

Says the guy who has clearly never gotten closer to actual combat than playing Halo, and instead probably spends most of his time wacking off in his mother's basement.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

We carpet bombed and destroyed cathedrals because that was all the technology allowed for us to do. Even in Desert Shield/Storm, while some smart bombs were used, some 95% of the ordinance dropped was the regular kind.

Now, with lasers and intertialy-guided, GPS-tracked missiles we have much more accuracy.

Why should we completely city blocks and towns when we can take out one building? Why should be destroy thousand year old buildings, and lose our human history? The Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues that were thousands of years old, and now they're gone forever. Alexandria was burned to the ground. The Nazis held book burning rallies. The Vikings pillaged and burned. The Soviets destroyed churches and monasteries, and how much was destroyed by the French Revolution with it's proclamation of Reason?

This war will last some time, but in grand scheme of things it's nothing. Two hundred years from now Iraq and Bush and all of us will be forgotten, but the marvels of art and architecture can still stand if we choose to let it.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[jez9999]

In WW2, if Germans were using a 1000-year-old cathedral tower for observation or sniping, we blew it up. For some reason, we don't shoot at mosques.

In WW2, we carpet bombed cities, and eventually just nuked the Japanese. Now we use "smart bombs" and are affraid of "collateral damage."

Ya ever think that maybe we learn a thing or two from the horrific events of WW2?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

In WW2 the Americans joined in a war between nation states. In Gulf War 2 the Americans conquered and occupied a sovereign nation.

The problem in Iraq is the Americans.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[bsDaemon]

I was medically disqualified from the service myself, even after several attempts to get a waiver (i'm allergic to dogs, they say i have asthma). I know a couple of guys who died, some that were wounded, some that got out more or less OK. My sister just married a long-time family friend last week. He's a marine and is going to Iraq in August, so don't think I don't care.

I'm also not trying to justify it. I'm just saying that if we were ACTUALLY FIGHTING A WAR instead of trying to play Team America: World Police,that NO ONE could beat the US. NO ONE. Not even China with their million infantry.

We have the best training, the best weapons and the best logistical support. We can, and have, fought multi-front wars. The problem is that since Korea, we haven't been ALLOWED to win because of stupid, douche-bag politicians.

This bullshit in Iraq and Afganistan is only slightly better than the Vietnam-style, take a hill then give it up just to retake it again next week.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anpheus]

My ignorance is backed up by people like General Petraeus and other military commanders. And it's clear we are facing a different sort of enemy, in a different sort of conflict.

And while it's completely true that the average soldier today receives superior training and equipment than the same soldier would have a mere twenty years ago, it doesn't weaken my argument. You see, that training appears to be for naught: criminal behavior is constantly occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers are consistently being told with wink and nod to use things like drop weapons and to shoot first, ask questions later. This is from the testimony of soldiers who have been on one or more tours in Iraq. They admit that it's terrifying, that every single time they get into a vehicle they are worried that any single person, any vehicle, any bump on the side of the road or any piece of brush may hide something that will end their lives.

Not only dumb people become soldiers, many people become soldiers. Bravely. I won't dispute that, they put their lives on the line for causes they may or may not agree with because they feel they can serve our country. That's honorable. I know an ex-Marine smarter than anyone else I know. He's not dumb, he didn't join the Marines because he wanted to go kill people, he did it to serve.

Maybe I'm not speaking from ignorance, c6gunner.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a quote from Napoleon Blownapart, but he had less success with the strategy.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mephistophyles]

I know this doesn't apply for all labs, but where I work it's not finances that are the main shortcoming. Sure, an increase in finance could help us, but even doubling our budget would leave us with more money than we can spend. It's the interference with scientific research that really gets in the way.

My fear is also that if science gets a huge boost in spending, the money would not all go to equally well thought out and worthy causes. Mismanagement is a big problem when the budget goes up.

Also, it might be worth noting that a small, but not unnoticeable percentage of the DoD budget goes to scientific research. I don't mean to troll, but a lot of military research also has civilian uses, just take a look at the list of DARPA research grants and imagine how valuable some of those things could be for civilian life. http://www.darpa.mil/body/off_programs.html

But all in all I do agree with you, a switch of focus from military to science would be nice, but the switch should not be financial, people need to realize that science holds such great promise that it's worth investing in.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

You seem to think that only large, nuclear-armed states can hurt you.

...which is true! Name a single instance in the last 50 years where a small, non-nuclear-armed country has hurt people within any of the 50 United States. I dare you.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

How about this one?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

In WW2, those countries you mention had actually attacked us before we invaded the. Iraq didn't!

In other words, the problem is not that we should not be restricting ourselves from certain targets, it's that we shouldn't have started fighting at all in the first place.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

Well see the problem is some of us are afflicted with ethics. We know civilians and otherwise innocent individuals are always harmed in wars.

Obviously, then, the only ethical course of action is not to engage in war at all in the first place! And then you've invalidated the whole rest of your argument.

The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact.

That's a fallacy: for all you know, the US wouldn't have been attacked again even if Bush had done absolutely nothing.

And even if you assume action was required to prevent us from being attacked, it certainly didn't require attacking a country entirely different from the one that was harboring the terrorists who attacked us! Remember Afghanistan? Most of the US apparently doesn't!

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

Lincoln had more support during the CIVIL WAR than Bush has today !

Does that include people from the states that tried to secede? I'd be real convenient for your argument if they were no longer counted as U.S. citizens in those opinion polls...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[omris]

There are a few problems with your scenario.

The first assumption you make is that with extra money, all that will happen is the amount of funding each research group receives will increase. This is insane.

Right now, I work on a project that is completely funded by the NIH and a private foundation grant. We recently applied for a second NIH grant to start up another section of our project. The current funding rate is 10%. When you submit a grant proposal to the NIH, they make a blanket decision on whether or not to consider you. If not, you get triaged out immediately. Then they take the remaining proposals and rank them, the highest rankings (in theory) going to those projects where they have the best laid plans with the best chance for meaningful success.

Once you make it past triage, you can already assume that your preliminary science is decent quality. Let us assume that an extra $300 million will double the NIH funding budget (it won't, but for the sake of argument). Of the already decent proposals, you will now need to make it into the top 20% to get funded, not the top 10%.

More science will get done. It will still be very high quality science. Maybe it might offset some of what I call the "Ribbon Effect", where big, loud causes who pass out a lot of ribbon get a lot of money (breast cancer funding versus lung cancer funding for example)

Sure, maybe the NIH would decide to just give everyone twice as much money. But in the research field, that would not be like giving the department of defense extra money and telling them to use it or lose it.

My lab has an RO1 grant (a high level of funding, spread over 4 years) from the NIH. If they gave us some ungodly amount of money, we would immediately use it to buy all of the long term equipment we need, but can do without because we have no other choice. Like an AC unit for the laser room, so that I can still get my work done during the summer. Half of the groups in the entire hospital shut down a few days a week all summer because the laser doesn't work if it's more than 80 degrees, and no one has the funds to buy an AC. Or how about replacing the centrifuge cover that's held together with tape. Sure it's a safety hazard, but they want $200 for a new one. Or maybe I could clean out the hazardous chemical closet and actually have the money to pay the disposal fees instead of just hiding stuff in the back and hoping no one notices and nothing explodes.

Unlike government, science has learned to do without for a very long time. Labs make do with broken equipment, bad infrastructure, doing things poorly, whatever they need to do to keep alive. It makes some of them go crazy and bare their teeth if people get too close to their paperclips. It isn't as though they would have even the slightest difficulty spending the money. It's sort of like arguing that we shouldn't give the starving kid too much food, because he won't know what to do with it. Sure if you stuff him full of bacon and french fries, he might throw up. But giving him three times as much food as he's used to is still only 1200 calories a day.

And don't even start about salaries. A friend of mine currently makes twice what I do for a starting salary as a temp worker in the tech field. He has a GED. Don't get me wrong, he's brilliant. But I have two four year degrees and at least 6 years of experience and I make about $30k a year, and I'm REALLY lucky to get that. You could easily double my salary. Really you could. No problems whatsoever. I'd buy a car. And maybe move into a place that doesn't have acoustical tile ceilings. Or possibly (gasp) OWN a home.

Hey DOD... us science types have an idea, lets just pool our resources, and split the budget 60/40. 70/30? 80/20? And we'll make you some nice superbug to wipe out half the planet with. Come on, you know you've always wanted one. I'll bet I could design some virus that only likes brown people. Wouldn't you like that? Come on now. Just try it.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[silentcoder]

>>Lincoln had more support during the CIVIL WAR than Bush has today !

>>Does that include people from the states that tried to secede? I'd be real convenient for your argument if they were no longer counted as U.S. citizens in those opinion polls...

Actually, yes it does. Have you noticed just HOW low Bush's most recent ratings are ? The seceding states did not even make up a full 50% of the US population, within those states pretty much EVER person who wasn't Caucasian would almost certainly have been supporting Lincoln and he had the support of the greater majority of the Northern states.

I would say a worst case scenario would have put Lincoln at, what, 50% support ? Lets be seriously pessimistic and say 30% ! That still beats Bush on the latest polls by a huge margin. Some polls have put Bush's approval ratings at UNDER 10% ! That, has NEVER happened before. EVER.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[silentcoder]

Oh, and for the record, I am not American so I have no democrat bias. Even if I did, Lincoln was the founder of the republican party. I think he would spin in his grave if he knew that his party would one day NOMINATE G.W. Bush for president, let alone elect him... TWICE*.

*And I am using 'elect' in what is probably the loosest sense since Robert Mugabe's version.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot would a post with no mods be moderated -1 Overrated. Anonymous for meta-discussion.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[larkost]

The argument that oil is the reason that we went in to Iraq keeps comming up, but it is a bit rediculoius. Before the war the West was the one that prevented Iraq from selling oil (except the limited amount in the "oild for food" program). Before that Iraq was happy to sell it to us. And now Iraq is a net importer of oil, since all the infrastructure was hevily damaged in the fighting (both the old-style war, and the insugency). And that sort of damage was completely predictable (in fact the militaty commanders were told to limit the damage as much as possible).

So evreyone knew that the war would reduce the amount of oil comming out of Iraq severely, and that if the US started taking the oil that the rest of the world would protest heavily (including OPEC). Where exactly does the logic that we went in there for oil come in?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anpheus]

It isn't a matter of not being allowed to win, it's because the idea of winning has changed from "militarily crush the opposition."

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[bsDaemon]

We crushed Germany and Japan and still manage to sell them Coca-Cola. Until you see the enemy driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women, how else are you going to know they know they got their ass kicked?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

That wasn't by a "small, non-nuclear-armed country." Try again.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[PunkOfLinux]

You. Fail. Miserably.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

No, it was by a large, nuclear state? Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states. Here is an example of where a small, well-organized group succeeded in performing a very high-profile operation on some of the US most valuable targets.

Note that I myself am not convinced that Al-Queda is to blame.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[shma]

The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact. Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[symbolic]

The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact.

This is a totally fallacious argument. It assumes that we would have been attacked had the Bush "doctrine" not been in effect. That we haven't says nothing BUT that we haven't. You'll need to demonstrate causality.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[sunhou]

Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

Definitely. I'm a prof. in a math dept, my work is in mathematical biology (population ecology and epidemiology, a combination of mathematical models and computer simulation models), and I've had about 10 undergrads working with me this past year. It'll probably be going up to about 15 students, thanks to another grant I just got.

If you are a motivated undergrad, you should seek out such opportunities. When I was a student, I knocked on a lot of prof's doors looking for work. One project led to the next. Once you get a good reputation, faculty will look for ways to support you.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Bowling Moses]

"The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact. "

In the 9/11 attacks 2,998 people died and over 6,000 were injured. The world responded with a huge outpouring of support and quickly became allies in ousting the Taliban. In the Iraq war, there have been 4,102 American military deaths, and another 313 military deaths from other countries. 29,978 Americans have been injured by tally from iCasualties. Over 900 contractors have been killed and 12,000 wounded by May 2007. Iraq Body Count, which probably has the most stringent standards (ie certainly will under-report) in reporting Iraqi deaths has an estimated 85,060 to 92,787 fatalities. The in/famous Lancet studies estimated 654,965 Iraqi fatalities through the end of June 2006. In addition to the carnage, we've got a military in a shambles that will take a decade or more and hundreds of billions of dollars to refit and rebuild. Our deficit has swelled. Our economy is staggering around punch-drunk. We've pissed off the world in a way that has never been done before. We've taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and the Taliban are regaining strength both there and in nuclear-armed Pakistan. It is indisputable that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, indeed Saddam was an enemy of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground.

And the evidence that this is protecting us, rather than killing, maiming, bankrupting, and making us less safe is that there hasn't been another attack on (excluding the frequent mortar and rocket attacks on our embassy in Iraq) US soil yet? I got a magic rock to sell you. Ever since I started carrying it I haven't been attacked by tigers. Low cost, only $140,000--about the same cost of one minute of the Iraq war.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

So evreyone knew that the war would reduce the amount of oil comming out of Iraq severely, and that if the US started taking the oil that the rest of the world would protest heavily (including OPEC). Where exactly does the logic that we went in there for oil come in?

Because the thinking was that with Saddam gone oil exports could ramp up to much higher levels (no profits going into Saddam's pocket). The Bush administration did not have the foresight to see how long it would take to get oil exports up to speed again - they did not even have the foresight to see how long the war would drag on for. I reject the premise that "everyone" knew how bad things would turn out, oil or otherwise: the only people who did know were those opposing the war.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

No, it was by a large, nuclear state?

No, it was by a criminal organization not connected to any state at all.

Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states.

No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.

Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[pipingguy]

It's not like there is a machine where you put money it and it outputs scientific truths on the other side.

Some people obviously still think this is true. After a certain point you run out of qualified people and the excess money goes towards "job creation", administration, marketing and management empire-building. Of course, all these expenses do absolutely nothing for productivity and actually hinder those doing real work.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[pipingguy]

You've got flowrate and fluid right but missed pressure and temperature.

www.pipingdesign.org
www.pipingdesign.com

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[fm6]

If we could avoid land wars in Asia (so presciently predicted by Wallace Shawn in _The_Princess_Bride_)

I don't recall the line (not my favorite movie) but it was a quote, not a prediction. Douglas MacArthur is frequently quoted has saying that anybody who gets the U.S. involved in a land war in Asia should have his head examined. Widely quoted during the Vietnam War. I suspect this is one of those apocryphal quotes: I can't find a direct attribution to MacArthur anywhere, and he himself commanded U.S. forces during our first big land war in Asia, Korea.

In any case, "Asia" here really refers to the Far East, not the Middle East.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not American? Then you must be one of those leftist commie liberals, not like a nice, balanced, middle of the road Amurikin.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[c6gunner]

And it's clear we are facing a different sort of enemy, in a different sort of conflict.

Yeah - a stupider, poorly trained, and poorly organized enemy, in what's basically a humanitarian relief operation. The biggest challenge isn't in military conflicts - it's in rebuilding civil infrastructure and establishing law and order.

This is from the testimony of soldiers who have been on one or more tours in Iraq. They admit that it's terrifying, that every single time they get into a vehicle they are worried that any single person, any vehicle, any bump on the side of the road or any piece of brush may hide something that will end their lives.

What the hell vets have you been talking to???

You know, the "Veterans for 9/11 Truth" say all kinds of stupid shit too, but they're such a tiny minority that it's absolutely ridiculous - and more than a little dishonest - to pretend that their statements are representative of the military as a whole.

Maybe I'm not speaking from ignorance, c6gunner.

Misconception, confusion, ignorance ... whatever. Either way, your statements are just plain wrong - or at best are plain-old fear-mongering. There's nothing wrong with the state of the US military. Could it be better? Sure. Things could ALWAYS be better. That's why we always strive to improve. That's got nothing to do with your little rants, though.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[ConceptJunkie]

Nah, they'd just piss it all away on something stupid and useless.

I'm torn between the fact that it's not the Federal Government's place to be subsidizing science, and the fact that it is practically the only thing the Federal Government does that has a chance of improving something.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[timeOday]

Name a reason for the Iraq war that is not full of the same logical inconsistencies, especially if you take the outcome into account.

Without oil, the US and the middle east would have little to do with each other in the first place. And without oil wealth, radical Islam wouldn't have any resources to support international terrorism even if they still wanted to.

No, I'm not really saying we're as far-gone as imperial Japan, but the invasion of Iraq was simply not justified.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[khallow]

You didn't ask me, but yes, the US would hold off on the nukes when we're fighting someone with similar nuclear weapon firepower. 20 years ago the USSR had that power. 20 years from now there probably be other nuclear powers. It's not static. The USA and USSR where never actively in conflict. Only covert actions were taken, if the USA or USSR had launched a full on conventional war then I would not be typing this right now and humanity would be completely over.

Nah, just a good portion of humanity. We have a pretty good understanding of what a nuclear weapon does. The USSR even decided (back in the late 60's) it could win a large nuclear war. The circumstances never arose though (it remained behind the US in nuclear and convention power).

The classic projection argument. Pretend it's something you'd do, and that somehow makes the argument true. Then again, maybe you would do this, which means that it's a good thing you aren't serving in the US military. That's absurd anybody put into a situation where their life is at stake constantly from an enemy they do not understand, from an enemy who hates them more than they value their own life, would clearly be extremely scared and would do anything necessary to survive.

That's not the situation in Iraq. The enemy is not hard to understand. Only some of the "enemy" (mostly the foreign recruits in Al Qaeda) commit suicide bombings and they're running low on allies. Most of the attacks are associated with clan and religious militias. The US soldiers aren't "extremely scared". I completely disagree with your characterization. There is plenty wrong with Iraq, but your views don't reflect what is going on there.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

No, it was by a criminal organization not connected to any state at all. Drop the term 'criminal' and I'm inclined to agree.

Your argument was that the US would only ever have to fight large, nuclear states.

No, my argument was that, of the states that the US might fight, only the large nuclear ones would have a chance of hurting people within the U.S. Entities which are not states are entirely different, and not included in my argument.

Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not? Does something magical happen when one attains statehood that they could not do, which they could when they were a small organization?

Of course, the actual point I'm getting at here is that the military is designed to engage in well-defined combat with other states. It is not appropriate for use against non-state entities; we would likely be better off handling "terrorism" with the CIA or something.

I agree that the US, and most other, militaries are designed to fight standing armies. Most of the international treaties that the US is party too regarding warfare assume the situation of one or more standing armies fighting other standing armies. Strict adhesion to these treaties would prevent effective fighting against smaller 'terrorist' organizations, which is why the US is breaking so many treaties. However, it is the army who is equipped and trained to handle urban combat, not the CIA which (correct me if I'm wrong) is an intelligence agency, not an operations agency. The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I am of the opinion that there is no better alternative.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not?

Simple: a state can't hide.

Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?

The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat.

Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!

In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anpheus]

So you agree that the "conflict" isn't actually one our military is best suited for?

Because I'm totally with you on this. We're basically fighting pissed of civilians using whatever homemade bombs they can because they Hate America(TM) or someone influential in their life told them to.

It's not a matter of ground conflict at all, we won that, and we continue to win that without equal by any other military in the world.

Unfortunately, our goal was to go into Iraq, supposedly, to quell a base of terrorist operations and a source of their funding and a source for weapons more dangerous than the airplanes used in 9/11. What we found were civilians who didn't like us, who we pissed off by not knowing their culture at all and completely disrupting the iron grip Saddam had on the place that kept the whole thing from exploding, and we failed to find those supposed weapons they were going to use. The end result was that we made more terrorists.

Awesome!

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anpheus]

Nevermind, I'm feeding a troll here who denies in the face of overwhelming evidence the current civilian casualty toll in Iraq, and has been called out on it in the past.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

Why do you suppose that a small non-state organization could hurt the US, but a state could not?

Simple: a state can't hide.

Really? Have you never heard of Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein? The goal of a war is not always overthrowing an opposing government. The US made the mistake (more than once) of overthrowing an opposing government. Then who's in charge? I'm sure that it looks easy to arm-chair generals, but believe me it's a lot more complicated than "bang-bang we won".

Most Americans don't appear to be aware of this, but Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks) is still at large. The government of the country that he (is or was) in, however, is completely destroyed. Now, do you think the Taliban would have chosen to conduct similar attacks directly, knowing the consequences?

The Taliban government was displaced because they refused to turn over Bin Laden. That was a huge mistake. The Taliban may have been religious extremists, but they did much good for their country. Of course, I doubt that much of the good of the Taliban has been reported in Western media. Google "taliban opium" for starters.

The scope of CIA combat operations is very limited and not designed for prolong, nor widespread, combat.

Exactly my point! We don't need prolonged or widespread combat; we need to infiltrate terrorist organizations and assassinate their leadership!

I do agree that prolonged combat should be avoided whenever possible, and that it was inappropriate in this case. However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated? Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.

And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

In short, we both agree that the US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy in particular) are currently not designed for the type of operations currently being performed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm asserting not only that, but also that the vast majority of those operations were and are unnecessary to begin with. (Especially in Iraq -- that was a complete non sequitur anyway!)

The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures. I do think that the US is going about it the wrong way, however.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we completely city blocks and towns when we can take out one building?

Because taking out one building is a whole lot more expensive, and it doesn't seem to get the point across.

After WWII, Germany was busy rebuilding for a few decades. The aftermath of WWII might have been rather different if it all had all been won by zapping Nazi leaders with lasers from space, leaving everything else untouched.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[Hubbell]

Says the guy with multiple friends over in Iraq, 2 of which are in the Special Forces, who told him almost word for word that those guys who are all OMG I"M AFRAID are pussies and should get slapped around and maybe have some sense knocked into them.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[c6gunner]

So you agree that the "conflict" isn't actually one our military is best suited for?

Why the hell would I agree with that?

Let me ask a different question: who, exactly, do you suppose would be better suited for the job?

We're basically fighting pissed of civilians using whatever homemade bombs they can because they Hate America(TM) or someone influential in their life told them to.

No, you're fighting pissed off morons who want to be in charge of Iraq. The US presence is almost incidental to them - they're much more interested in killing Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi police, as well as butchering Iraqi civilians in order to scare the rest into submission. The small number of fighters who target US soldiers exclusively are barely worth mentioning - the largest factions are religious militias who slaughter people indiscriminately.

The end result was that we made more terrorists.

Ah, yes. It wasn't Iran which continues to fund and arm them, or Saudi Arabia, whose religious zealots continue to brainwash them. No, it's us. We made them, by trying to get them to stop killing each other.

I suppose that after a few too many joints, such a world-view would make perfect sense ...

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

Simple: a state can't hide.

Really? Have you never heard of Hezbollah? Saddam Hussein?

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq.

Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.

The US made the mistake (more than once) of overthrowing an opposing government. Then who's in charge? I'm sure that it looks easy to arm-chair generals, but believe me it's a lot more complicated than "bang-bang we won".

Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.

The Taliban government was displaced because they refused to turn over Bin Laden. That was a huge mistake. The Taliban may have been religious extremists, but they did much good for their country. Of course, I doubt that much of the good of the Taliban has been reported in Western media. Google "taliban opium" for starters.

I don't understand what you're getting at here, either. How does this refute my point that (assuming they would have wanted to in the first place) the Taliban would have chosen to refrain from carrying out the 9/11 attacks out of self-preservation?

However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated?

Very carefully?

Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.

I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.

And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?

The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures.

Interesting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

I don't know if you are joking -- I apologise for misunderstanding if that's the case -- but the "never fight a land war in Asia" rule is due to Montgomery, the WWII commander.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

Of course, that kind of thinking was prevalent in British politics before 1982 -- in fact, a huge cut was going to be made to the Royal Navy's budget, which would have left it unable to retake the Falklands. Nobody could agree more that science should be better funded; in fact, funded at least as well as the military, but it is not a good idea to abandon all but a nuclear force. A strong conventional army has never been, isn't, and never will be, a bad idea.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

Who didn't actually manage to get to finish fighting long enough to have peace. No, quote me successful military commanders instead, like Wellington, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Macarthur, Zhukov, or whomever you like. Not failed megalomaniac loony commanders like Napoleon, Hitler or Bush.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

Originator of the quote is Bernard Montgomery, during WWII. He was widely quoted.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[fm6]

OK, I Googled it, and you're sort of correct. What Monty actually said was, "The U.S. has broken the second rule of war. That is, don't go fighting with your land army on the mainland of Asia. Rule One is don't march on Moscow. I developed these two rules myself."

(God, what a twit. It's astonishing who the Brits will trust an army with.)

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Hezbollah isn't a government, and Saddam Hussein only hid after he lost control of Iraq. Besides, it's Israel that's really pissed off about Hezbollah, not us.

You seem to have forgotten about the hundreds (~250) US Marines that were killed my Hezbollah. And if you are not aware, Hezbollah _is_ in the Lebanese government. And you should see what they do when they don't get their way. Without being offensive, really, either your non-/. news sources are not telling you everything or you haven't been paying attention for the past two months.

Oh, no doubt. But that opposing government, if it's of a small, non-nuclear country, certainly can't stop us from doing it (or anything else) if we decide to.

Again, without being offensive, do you really think that it is logical that any one large government, whether it be the US, Israel, or China, could bully it's way around the world like that?

However, how do you think that 'terrorist' organizations are infiltrated?

Very carefully?

Your answer sounds like the punchline to a joke. I think that you really underestimate those 'stupid Arabs'.

Always treat your enemy as smarter than you, especially when you are in their territory. I do not believe that the US could infiltrate Al Quaeda.

I'm no CIA agent, so I don't feel qualified to opine about this. But considering how open the Al Qaida recruitment seems to have been (attracting people from many different countries, including, I believe, the US) I can't believe it would be impossible.

Well, I'm in infantry not intelligence, but I will tell you that these cell-based organizations are a one-way flow of information only. Anything that flows from the bottom back up goes through many layers of insulation, often traveling hundreds of kilometers. Getting to clean Al Quaeda's toilets might be easy. Getting to wipe Osama's ass won't be.

And don't forget the military show that the US population needed after the fall of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

First of all, that's just stupid (not your argument, but the fact that the US population really would demand that). Second, but at what cost? Surely, if we had had a competent government, it could have managed a cheaper show of force? Third, even if I agreed that a show of force was desirable, that was Afghanistan. WTF does Iraq have to do with anything?

I was not in the US at the time of the Towers' destruction, however, from the Americans in the area I heard cries for blood, and that's what I read on the news. I do remember the small let's-give-peace-a-chance hippies doing their best to show themselves off, too, though. Maybe I judged the US wrong, sorry for that, though American machoism would be very well excused for crying for blood after having the Pentagon, Twin Towers, and 4 airplanes destroyed. At what cost? I don't remember that _ever_ being a consideration of US interests other than science and education, and especially not military interests. And what does Iraq have to do with all this? It's the golden rule: he with the gold (oil) gets the US to rule them :)

The vast majority of continued operations, so far as I understand, are preventative measures.

Interesting euphemism for "occupation" you've got there.

That's a good point. I also agree that US interests could be furthered in Iraq much better should the occupation end. And yes, I do consider it a military occupation. However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

In spite of all his accomplishments, you somehow still classify him a twit. Great armchair criticism there, mate. What do you know about war again?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[fm6]

I know that a lot of people who worked with Monty found him somewhat less than brilliant. He did have a high victory rate, but that seems to have been achieved by using intelligence data (recall that the Allies had access to much of the Axis encrypted radio traffic) to avoid battle until he had an overwhelming advantage. While other commanders were pushing the fight home, he was holding back until he could score easy wins.

Even during the war, Monty was notorious for this. Of course nobody could call him on his misuse of intelligence, since the very existence of that intelligence was the most closely guarded secret of the war, even more than the Manhattan Project.

I'm no expert, armchair or otherwise. But I've never read a military historian who had anything nice to say about Monty.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

I can only wonder what you read. I, too, only dabble, but I've read Colville's diaries (who was Churchill's private secretary), and Churchill certainly had the highest confidence in him. So did Alan Brooke. Now, his personality may have angered his colleagues, but his record is faultless; he won all the campaigns he was assigned two, save the failed mission at Market Garden; and importantly, his troops loved and trusted him. Perhaps he was not a strategic genius like Dowding in his field -- and I don't know; who am I to say? -- but certainly a very successful commander, who handled his troops very well.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[fm6]

hurchill certainly had the highest confidence in him... Right, like a wartime PM is going to admit that his chief general is anything but brilliant.

but his record is faultless Didn't I address that issue? If you're just going to ignore my arguments, we really don't have a lot to talk about.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[laddiebuck]

Privately, Churchill was extremely frank. There was no self-delusion in his war cabinet. 4 generals in North Africa were sacked before Montgomery won.

As to your intelligence argument; it's been made before by calling Monty a 'materiel' general, but the fact is, all of his predecessors had access to the same intelligence. Don't forget that by late 1940, there wasn't a single German spy in the United Kingdom who was not a double agent working for the British government. U.S. generals had access to the same intelligence too, by the way. I didn't argue this point before because I considered it transparently bunk, but here's my argument now.

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[mrchaotica]

And if you are not aware, Hezbollah _is_ in the Lebanese government. And you should see what they do when they don't get their way.

I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?

Again, without being offensive, do you really think that it is logical that any one large government, whether it be the US, Israel, or China, could bully it's way around the world like that?

Since when did logic have anything to do with international politics? I don't think either of us was claiming that it'd be a good idea.

However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.

Your answer sounds like the punchline to a joke. I think that you really underestimate those 'stupid Arabs'.

Yeah, sorry, my dad always likes to jokingly answer that when I ask him how to do something difficult. However, what it means is "I don't know." So no, I didn't intend to underestimate the Arabs.

Well, I'm in infantry not intelligence, but I will tell you that these cell-based organizations are a one-way flow of information only. Anything that flows from the bottom back up goes through many layers of insulation, often traveling hundreds of kilometers. Getting to clean Al Quaeda's toilets might be easy. Getting to wipe Osama's ass won't be.

Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.

American machoism would be very well excused for crying for blood after having the Pentagon, Twin Towers, and 4 airplanes destroyed. At what cost? I don't remember that _ever_ being a consideration of US interests other than science and education, and especially not military interests.

Yep. Sucks, don't it?

And what does Iraq have to do with all this? It's the golden rule: he with the gold (oil) gets the US to rule them :)

Right: exactly nothing, except that patriotic fervor over terrorism provided a convenient excuse.

However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.

That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?

Re:$300 million sounds impressive

[dotancohen]

I don't really know how intertwined the political party and terrorist halves of that organization are, so I'll concede your point. However, saying that (as a political party) Hezbollah is "in" the government isn't quite the same as saying that it is the government -- presumably, the Lebanese government contains legitimate, non-Hezbollah parts, right?

You, me, and the Lebanese people would prefer to believe that Hezbollah is _in_ the government and does not _rule_ the government. However, go read about the events of the last two months in Lebanon. You will be disappointed and scared.

However, the fact that -- as you say -- the U.S. has done it, on multiple occasions, despite it being stupid, is a very good deterrent for governments who don't want it to happen to them next.

Correct, however entities that act in that fashion are called bullies in most contexts. Don't get me wrong, the US bulling the world around is fine by me because the US is a very friendly nation to my country, however, that does not mean that I don't identify with the nations being bullied around.

Okay, so it wouldn't be easy. But "not easy" is not the same as "impossible." I think we could have managed it, especially if we had thrown even a fraction of the resources behind it that we did the assault.

The US could not have taken Al Quaeda without force. Going from the inside out would have taken literally decades as the process is one of inheritance. And that is assuming that the US could compromise someone worthy of inheriting such a position.

Yep. Sucks, don't it?

Yep. The US could very easily be the world leader in science and technology. It is leaving that position to India (third world country), Israel (tiny nation with no natural resources) and China (arch-rival for decades).

However, I agree with the goal of continued operations, even if not with the strategy.

That's an interesting statement. What are you defining the goals and strategy to be?

I'm not. I can identify a problem when I see it, but I will admit that I have no real solutions. That is why I am not a politician nor a general. I suppose that the best idea would be to let the Iraqis govern themselves and decide their own fate. But the US cannot take the risk that the Iraqis would be pro-US afterwards, and besides, they did take responsibility for upheaving the old government, so they should be responsible for ensuring a stable replacement government. In short, I really have no good answers to that one.

Math and Science teachers?

[sokoban]

Shouldn't that be the Department of Education's concern?

As far as I can tell, the problem with math and science teachers is that almost all of them can make more money in another profession. Teaching is crappy pay when you consider all that a science or math major has to go through to get their degree.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[REJOSU]

I won't post with the audacity to state such an incredible stereotype, but...

In America, the quality of math and science teachers is decreasing overall because of this fact. Why take a job paying such a pittance when you could take a potential lab or research job that would pay more?

This leaves us with the students who were the worst in their studies teaching. Obviously this isn't true of all teachers, it does however, seem to be a trend that is developing.

I have friends who in college had aspirations to become doctors and engineers, however after they couldn't cut it, changed their majors to education.

Two are biology teachers, one is a chemistry teacher, and the four are social studies of some variety or another.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[BorgCopyeditor]

This leaves us with the students who were the worst in their studies teaching. Obviously this isn't true of all teachers, it does however, seem to be a trend that is developing.

Great statistics, evidence, and argument. I'm guessing you're a teacher?

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[jim_deane]

Why take a job paying such a pittance when you could take a potential lab or research job that would pay more? I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in physics, and toward the end of my master's degree I decided to go into teaching.

I had other options, and I have since had other offers for higher pay, but there are tangible benefits to teaching for someone who genuinely loves the subject or loves learning.

1. You continue to study and increase mastery of the fundamental concepts in your discipline.
   
2. Developing courses and course materials is a rigorous academic exercise.
   
3. You are encouraged to continue to study and take coursework of interest to you.
   
4. You have the opportunity to interact with others from your discipline and other disciplines at all academic levels.
   
5. Teaching, as a profession, allows for some independent decision-making and self-guidance at a level not usually found in research positions unless you are a principal investigator.
   
6. Aside from coursework, you have two to three months during the summer to do research, write, collaborate with others, work, travel, or pursue other intellectual endeavors.
   

If money is your only concern, then obviously education is not a good career choice. However, teachers are not (as a rule) starving, and the pay is sufficient in most areas to maintain a decent lower middle-class lifestyle.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[Qetu]

There is a saying: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. The current system perpetuates this.

The main problem is money. Teachers don't get enough money, and that makes teaching not attractive as a job.
You can't fix this fact with money right now, because there are too many teachers. It's a base job.
I think this public service job should be equalized to being a lawyer or medic, respect and salary-wise.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[Anonymous Coward]

With over twenty years of experience as a mathematics teacher, I can attest to the dismal pay. This past semester I worked on an NSF funded project to help minority students learn basic algebra so that they can continue into a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) major, and I was paid about $30/hr (classroom time) to teach. Classroom time does not really reflect the amount of time necessary to teach. It was four hours straight teaching/supervising, dealing with students with marginal ability (full content), where they were routinely told of grand opportunities if they just get though a degree program.

Oh, the best part, even after working for two-months straight I still have not seen one dime. Students on the other hand had a full ride . . . tuition, books, lunch. I think it's safe to say that per student award (money spent per student) is far greater than my pay.

Re:Math and Science teachers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this public service job should be equalized to being a lawyer or medic, respect and salary-wise. Sure... require them to get a PHD and work in the private sector just like the lawyers and doctors. Oh, you want to require a lesser degree, provide tenure so they can't be fired, give them half the year off and grant a public paid for pension to boot?

Less than 1 Day in Iraq

[SloWave]

This is less than what 1 day in Bush's Iraq War. http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Cathoderoytube]

If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[scorp1us]

Well you can't really attest to anything before you were born. As you were born from humans (allegedly, i have it on good authority you mother was a hamster), everything you believe about what came before you is a matter of what you've been told to believe.

In the creation/evolution debate both require faith. One is in divine intent, the other in a process. Both gave rise to you. So what you believe at best is an educated guess. Until it is directly observed, it is alleged. Even then what you observe is subject to your own prejudices.

Ultimately the creation/evolution debate need not be answered. Our educational system need only focus on teaching skills. Creation and evolution are not skills we can directly control. (But genes are another story...)

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[horatiocain]

Well you can't really attest to anything before you were born.

If that's the case, I guess we can throw away the fields of history, astronomy, geology, and so on. Hardly; we have plenty of evidence that the world existed long before any one of us. That evidence (stuff like documents, fossils, etc) is what makes it science. If tomorrow we find evidence that suggests that dinosaurs wrote the constitution, historians and biologists alike will be wrestling each other to be the firsts to document that and turn our knowledge base upside down. And that right there is the difference - science is based on facts, not faith.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[stranger_to_himself]

While I agree with you, and I understand the anti-creationist feeling, I don't think we do ourselves any favours by trying to get things banned from teaching. It doesn't go well with our claims to be open minded and objective about what we believe. Science is based heavily on faith, because there's always a gap between evidence and what we infer from it. There are always bits of evidence that don't fit our theories or models, and we have to be honest about that.

Evolution isn't as obvious as people like to claim. If it is, then why did it take until 1859 for The Origin of Species to be published, which was more than 100 years after Linneaus described the systematic nature of biology?

The best thing to do, and the best way to develop young minds is to show them all the evidence, describe to them all of the ideas, and then let them make up their own minds. It doesn't matter in any material way whether you believe in creation or evolution, what matters, at least in science lessons, is the process by which you arrive at your conclusions.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Pvt. Cthulhu]

im a staunch athiest, yay 6 billion or so year old earth and such. but i still believe in government impartiality when it comes to these things. im not for creationism being taught in schools, but isnt that the individual school districts right to make it available? belief in the bible (torah, koran, etc) is very serious to some people, and the stories of creation are the foundation of man's place on earth, and the closest thing many people have to true introspection, but its 3am and i digress. My point is that the government cannot take sides in a religious/secular debate, just as it cannot take sides in a purely religious one. Yes, science funding is important and should be increased whenever there is cash, because America has much to gain from it, but we have little to gain from killing its competition .

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Cathoderoytube]

What an asinine comment "In the creation/evolution debate both require faith" Faith is believing in something despite lack of evidence. There's more than enough evidence to support evolution. There is absolutely none supporting creationism. "Ultimately the creation/evolution debate need not be answered. Our educational system need only focus on teaching skills. Creation and evolution are not skills we can directly control" We should teach our children to write but not actually make them read Shakespeare?

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[dotancohen]

If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it. I am not familiar with your Creationism, but I've never heard the expanding earth theory, the crystals for cancer theory, nor the sin-aids relationship theory. Is this what American schools really teach?

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. Way to go stamping out a symptom rather than a cure. Like it or not, there are as many ignorant people who accept evolution out-of-hand without understanding it as ignorant people who reject evolution out-of-hand without understanding it.

The problem is willful ignorance, not creationism. Most of the people who accept ID, sorry to burst your bubble, never had the intellectual curiosity to become scientists in the first place. Bottom line is that if we want more scientists from our school system, we need to make materials at any level, up to university level, easily available to students who *are* curious, so their curiousity doesn't die.

Other school systems are far better at publicizing materials. Russian teachers can refer students interested in higher maths to appropriate books for *download*. Russia, incidentally, does a damn good job producing mathematicians. Sure, there are a ***kton of barriers to a similar US approach, not the least of which are the teachers themselves, but access to better instruction and materials for curious students is what's needed.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[uuxququex]

I don't think we do ourselves any favours by trying to get things banned from teaching.

There is a lot we don't teach children. We don't teach them that the sun revolves around the earth. We don't teach them 2 + 2 = 5. We should also not teach them the fairytales of a few deranged retards that creationism is.

Science is based heavily on faith,,

It isn't. Don't fool yourself. What you might think is faith, is the gap between a model of reality and reality itself. Simplified it goes like this:

1. Observe a phenomenon that you can't explain with current theory;
2. Think what could/should be changed about the current model of reality (the theory) to make this fit;
3. With this new model, predict some other phenomena;
4. Experiment to check this;
5. If there is experimental evidence, hooray! You now have a better theory! If not, go to step 2.

With this, you end up with a better theory, a better model of reality. And YES, scientist KNOW that this is not the truth, that everyday a rival theory could explain reality better, simpler or more complete. This is the scientific method. No faith required.

There are always bits of evidence that don't fit our theories or models, and we have to be honest about that.

Yes, these gaps are what make good scientist go "hmmm, I wonder if...", right before they go off to do science.

Evolution isn't as obvious as people like to claim. If it is, then why did it take until 1859 for The Origin of Species to be published, which was more than 100 years after Linneaus described the systematic nature of biology?

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?

The single most important handbrake on the development of human intellect has always been religion.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[glitch23]

If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it.

Whether you view it as science or not, what is so wrong about teaching creationism so that people get both sides of the debate instead of being spoon fed what a minority believes? People on /. complain all the time that the public at large act too much like sheep and then when something that doesn't jibe with the status quo is attempted to be taught it is squashed so the sheep can remain indoctrinated into believing a theory based on assumptions with massive holes.

As far as the gov't crushing creationism, I have a feeling that *could* create a conflict of interest with that whole separation of church and state some people believe exists. But maybe it depends on what you mean by "crush" and in what venue(s). Then again, many schools won't allow any hint of Christianity within the classroom even though Islam is beginning to run rampant; go figure. I guess the separation of church and state only exists for when it is convenient to push an agenda.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The best thing to do, and the best way to develop young minds is to show them all the evidence,

All the evidence supports evolution. Every last bit of it. So while I agree that "showing them all the evidence" is a great idea, that's clearly not what creationists have in mind.

describe to them all of the ideas,

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of creation myths out there, from religions past and present; if we include mythology in the category "all the ideas," then a quick summary of those myths would take up a full academic year at least. OTOH, if we want to present only scientific ideas in science class, fortunately there's really only one idea that needs to be taught.

and then let them make up their own minds.

Indeed. They'll do that regardless, of course. But if we teach them critical thinking instead of blind faith, and evidence instead of fairy tales, then the choice they'll make is a lot more likely to be one that has some relation to reality.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Luke_22]

to summarize:
science vs. faith :)

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[nawcom]

I'm glad you replied to this. It's really sad that creationism is still strong in the United States. Christians in Europe, and especially Catholics heavily disagree with creationism..

Do creationists believe that the National Academy of Scientists is a scam? I'll never understand why evidence, evidence, and more evidence is never enough to prove evolution, the same way the evidence we have supports the theory of gravitation. I guess they are unhappy with the small blocks in it (that they are filling every month with new found physical, visible evidence). At the same time, creationists aren't finding any evidence. They are just trying to morph evidence and quotes in order to disprove evidence for evolution. Gotta love it. Let me know when you find out via science how a world flood can happen, then i'll pay attention. In the meantime, i'll wait until you correct your debunked claims that are on http://www.talkorigins.org/ and actually come up with decent debunking claims on your own supposed true origins site.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[nawcom]

The best thing to do, and the best way to develop young minds is to show them all the evidence, describe to them all of the ideas, and then let them make up their own minds. Isn't that process going one-way though? Evidence for evolution massively outweighs evidence for god magic. creationist have yet to use the scientific method to make their own claims of evidence legit.

if you could take away religion or pro-science thinking from families in some way to stop it from affecting a childs thought process, and send them to school showing the puzzle pieces found that fit in the evolution puzzle and the puzzle pieces in the creation puzzle, which will they think is real? I guess i just find your process of how to have minds develop the best way going in one direction only. The other requires the same faith that children have in Santa Claus.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Nullav]

Evolution is a theory because it has been verified multiple times. (Selective breeding is a rather nice example.) 'Intelligent Design' is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that says all living beings were created by a being we can never hope to observe.
I suppose we'll be teaching Flat Earth Theory in geology classes next?

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[stranger_to_himself]

If you do an experiment, your application of the results to the material beyond which you directly observe is a leap of faith of some kind. You might simply have had a freak result. It happens a lot. You might be able to give your level of faith a p-value, or modify it based on further experiments, but it's still faith, however well documented.

You begin to understand this if you explore the different arguments that statisticians put forward for how to draw inferences from data. None of them are right, and none of them can rely solely on axioms of mathematics, purely because of that leap from observations to inferences about the unobserved.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[stranger_to_himself]

and then let them make up their own minds.

Indeed. They'll do that regardless, of course. But if we teach them critical thinking instead of blind faith, and evidence instead of fairy tales, then the choice they'll make is a lot more likely to be one that has some relation to reality.

Well quite. That was kind of my point, although I don't seem to have expressed it very well.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[dvice_null]

> There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of creation myths out there

Indeed, in Finnish mythology kalled Kalevala, the world was born from an egg of a bird. I don't know any Finnish person who would still bulieve in this story, but obviously they should teach this theory in US schools.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Washii]

I've heard of 'expanding earth' in passing. I think it was just as a joke.

Otherwise, I've never heard of these. And, no, my schools didn't teach anything like this. Which is surprising, with how Conservative my area is. Just not Conservative religious, I suppose.

On the whole, that grandparent just had to be sarcasm.

However, when you think about it, half the people in the states are screaming about 9/11, Katrina, and now the levees busting in Iowa/midwest being from "God mad at us."
How much can you blame these 'smart' people for believing in Creationism?

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[ultranova]

There is a lot we don't teach children. We don't teach them that the sun revolves around the earth. We don't teach them 2 + 2 = 5. We should also not teach them the fairytales of a few deranged retards that creationism is.

With comments like this, you do nothing to help your cause; quite the contrary, a creationist could quote you as evidence that his opponents are arrogant morons who's arguments are kindergarden insults, and thus shouldn't be listened on.

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?

It didn't. The Greeks also had a Sun-centric model. Galileo didn't observe that Earth revolves around Sun, he observed that Jupiter has moons which revolve around it. And the greeks didn't have access to either calculus or to telescopes.

The single most important handbrake on the development of human intellect has always been religion.

A likely unprovable claim, as it is impossible to compare history to a version without religion.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Gibsnag]

Because they want it taught in science lessons. If you're going to teach science, then teach science don't teach something that hasn't gone through the wringer that is the scientific community and that has had to use the legal system to try and get into classrooms.

If these school boards want to teach their ridiculous creation myths then teach it in a religious education class, where major world religions are explained and discussed. If they don't want to teach valid scientific theories in their science classes then quit with the intellectual dishonesty and stop teaching science altogether. There is some equally insane "alternative" to every scientific theory which I'm sure someone would like to be taught:

Astronomy -> Astrology
Chemistry -> Alchemy
Biology -> Creation Studies (The Christian one, obviously)
Etc, etc...

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, science relies on belief in the philosophy of science.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[uuxququex]

[...] a creationist could quote you as evidence that his opponents are arrogant morons [...]

They could do that. What they should do, but never will do, is develop an independent thought and ask themselves why they choose to hang on to a severely misguided and dangerous cult.

And the greeks didn't have access to either calculus or to telescopes.

Look up Archimedes. He is widely credited with laying the foundation of calculus.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Ixot]

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math? Actually the idea of a heliocentric model did come up in ancient Greece: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[mrchaotica]

The fact that the earth revolves around the sun isn't as obvious as people like to claim, If it is, why did it take until Galileo, which was more than thousands of years after the Greek had access to math?

Not to try to refute your overall claim, but the answer to your question is, it didn't. Various ancient cultures (I forget which, exactly, but I'm pretty sure it included the Mayans and I think it even included the Greeks) knew perfectly well that the Earth revolved around the Sun. It's just the ignorant barbarians that sacked Rome, and their subsequent superstitious dumbass offspring, that didn't.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[mrchaotica]

im not for creationism being taught in schools, but isnt that the individual school districts right to make it available?

Not in science class, it isn't!

The fundamental principle of "Intelligent Design" is that it concludes, by the mere fact that we don't know how certain complex biological structures came about, that we can't possibly ever find out how they came about and therefore must have been created by God. This is exactly the opposite of the Scientific Method -- you know, that thing upon which all science is based -- and is therefore fundamentally incompatible with science. "It's impossible to know this, so we shouldn't even try" is never a valid answer in science; the only correct answer is to say "we need to figure out an experiment to test this." Do you see the difference?

"Intelligent Design" is not science, so it should not be taught in science class. Period. Feel free to stick it in with language arts class, though, next to all the other mythology.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[mrchaotica]

I've heard of 'expanding earth' in passing. I think it was just as a joke.

Actually, in contrast to bullshit like "Intelligent Design," I think the "expanding earth" theory is useful, if only as a pedagogical exercise. (First, let me make sure we're talking about the same thing: the theory that there's no such thing as a force of gravity, but that everything in the universe is constantly increasing in size so that it seems that way.) By having students think through this theory, and find evidence to refute it, the Scientific Method can be demonstrated.

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[mrchaotica]

Whether you view it as science or not, what is so wrong about teaching creationism so that people get both sides of the debate instead of being spoon fed what a minority believes?

First of all, you can't dismiss the issue of whether it's viewed as science or not; that's the very crux of the problem! If all the creationists wanted was to have Christian mythology taught in the same context as Greek, Norse, and whatever other kind of mythology, then we wouldn't have a problem. But they don't. They want it to be taught as if it were (literally) the Gospel Truth, as part of (or rather, a replacement for) science class.

And that's what's wrong: whether creationism is True or not is irrelevant, because science isn't concerned with Truth. Science is concerned with rigor and proof instead. Science is nothing more or less than the application of the Scientific Method. Period. That's all.

In contrast, creationist arguments (including "Intelligent Design") explicitly reject the Scientific Method, choosing to instead assume that "because we don't know this, it must be unknowable and therefore God did it." Including such bullshit in science class would completely undermine it (which is exactly what the proponents of "Intelligent Design" want, of course), which is intolerable. Essentially, what the teachers would have to say is something like "Okay, so here's the Scientific Method, which is the fundamental basis of all science and which all scientific theories follow, except this theory (i.e., "ID") that doesn't but which the state says I have to claim is science anyway." I mean really, WTF?!

Re:And forcing creationism with the other hand...

[Cathoderoytube]

School districts shouldn't be taking sides and forcing religion into classrooms. A lot of schools offer religion classes, which is fine if you want to take them.
Also a lot of churches offer Sunday school, which teach all the religion you could ever want. They're perfectly free to teach children creationism in that environment if they feel like it.

Fermi?

[jadedoto]

I guess something is better than nothing? Does this mean the govn't values Fermi for at least another few days of operation?

Criticisms

[scorp1us]

NASA: An outmoded government agency that will be replaced by private enterprise in 10-25 years. I'd rather see money go to private enterprise, if you are to dish out my tax money at all.

NIH: A bunch of self-serving PhDs that make policies about public health then go on to corporations that benefit from those policies. The NIH has yet to do a scientific study on weight loss. (Note: combining diet /and/ exercise in a study is not scientific, as you can't tell if it was diet or exercise that produced the result.)

NSF: They seem to be doing an ok job. Nothing stands out in my head at 3:17am about them.

New Math: What was wrong with the old math? I remember being exposed to new math in 4th grade. It was pointless. I never needed until college, and only for bit mapping. I don't impress the ladies with knowing DEADBEEFBABE can be a number.

Re:Criticisms

[stranger_to_himself]

NIH: A bunch of self-serving PhDs that make policies about public health then go on to corporations that benefit from those policies. The NIH has yet to do a scientific study on weight loss. (Note: combining diet /and/ exercise in a study is not scientific, as you can't tell if it was diet or exercise that produced the result.)

That's quite a bizarre statement. The NIH does really run any studies, it's a funding body. The have an entire center dedicated to funding obesity research. Here's an example of an NIH funded diet and weight loss study.

Obviously any trial of say diet and weight loss has to involve exercise as a factor to be held constant, otherwise you never will be able to separate the effects. Having said that since we know both diet and exercise affect obesity there isn't a lot of point studying them both separately any more. What is now needed and what the NIH is currently funding a lot of are studies to find ways to actually get people to eat properly and to exercise more by making global lifestyle changes. Kind of life this one".

Re:Criticisms

[dotancohen]

New Math: What was wrong with the old math? I remember being exposed to new math in 4th grade. It was pointless. I never needed until college, and only for bit mapping. I don't impress the ladies with knowing DEADBEEFBABE can be a number. What is "new math"? I don't think that my country teaches it.

Re:Criticisms

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Enjoy your ignorance. Those of us doing useful research that private industry chooses not to fund will go on doing what we do, and people like you will go on benefiting from it.

Re:Criticisms

[Anonymous Coward]

Abstract mathematics introduced as a series of logic puzzles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math

Re:Criticisms

[dotancohen]

Seems like it was abandoned long ago. But it does prove one thing: the space race did in fact kick the US into gear and to rethink it's education system. Too bad they went from one extreme to the other, and then back again. At the risk of karma, that is typical of American politician. "Big changes!" rather than evolution of the system. Just like in software development, this leads to much unexpected breakage.

Re:Criticisms

[gtall]

Hear, hear! Basic research is just that, basic and almost impossible to draw a straight from that to some widget the proles can enjoy. Should we fund Mathematics? Gee, I don't know, most modern industry is using the results of investment in Math. How about Logic? Ever hear of computers? Quantum theory? Maybe them chips were built by elves following plans supplied by the Spaghetti Monster.

Gerry

Re:Criticisms

[pipingguy]

What is now needed and what the NIH is currently funding a lot of are studies to find ways to actually get people to eat properly and to exercise more by making global lifestyle changes.

Dear Government,

Please stay out of my personal decisions. Thank you.

I had a room mate that became a highschool science

[msimm]

teacher. For the chicks I think.

And ya, that's creepy.

Re:Spending that in Iraq every day?

[jlarocco]

In other news, $162 billion was just approved for the war in Iraq. Oh, and a few more billion for some congress people's pet projects.

<sarcasm>Good to see we have our priorities straight. Also good to see the democrats following through on their promise to stop funding the "war" now that they're the majority. I'd hate to think democrats and republicans were both equally useless.</sarcasm>

Fiction

[heroine]

Should be noted these increases are not expected to go through. The media

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-nasa1908jun19,0,253051.story

has stated they're what would get passed if the next president supported increased spending, but under the current tightwad, voters should expect everything except defense to be held at current levels.

Heaven forbid another penny pinching tightwad get elected.

Re:Fiction

[Repossessed]

Bush is hardly a tightwad, keep in mind, with one exception (stem cell bill) he never vetoed a spending bill before the Democrats took control.

Re:Fiction

[orphiuchus]

Yes, just what all us republicans wanted. A "conservative" in the white house who does nothing at all about spending and expands government.

Re:Fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted it enough to put him there again.

Re:Fiction

[Repossessed]

You really need to do a better job screening the candidates in the primaries if they keep doing the opposite of what the party is after.

Re:Fiction

[orphiuchus]

The party hasn't been after its stated goals in a long time. All thats left on the right is democrats who like god and war. But I'll live with that to avoid a socialist to be honest.

ITER?

[Prune]

So is there going to be any funding allocated for ITER?

Re:ITER?

[mako1138]

No, not really.

The big losers would be researchers working on the U.S. team for ITER, the gigantic fusion reactor to be built in Cadarache, France (Science, 13 June, p. 1405). In December, Congress zeroed out the U.S.'s $149 million contribution to ITER this year. The Senate version of the supplemental included $55 million for fusion research, but the House bill doesn't mention the discipline. It also forbids DOE to spend any of the 2008 money on research until it has restored all the job cuts, meaning that ITER would have to make do with whatever is left.

Wait a minute.

[Atario]

They're *offsetting* *reductions* of *increases*? Well, I guess that makes sense if the decreases in reversing the upticks in reduction rates have oh dear I've gone cross-eyed.

Think of the Children!

[Anonymous Coward]

> US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies

Is this the best use of our tax dollars? Right now, somewhere in North Carolina, is a little girl who thinks the Galapogas Islands are a real place. What's more important? Discovering if there is water on Mars, or this little girl? Yes, Imagine what good could have been done if that $300M was given to faith-based initiatives instead.

(holds breath)

BUWAHAHAHHAH!!! Oh dearie me...

You wouldn't believe the waste in Defense Spending

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent 20 years as a military officer. I can tell you that *well* over 50% of the DoD budget is squandered on stuff that doesn't do anything to defend our country.

Every military organization knows that its budget is a "use it or lose it" proposition: if all of your allotted money isn't spent by 30 September, you'll get less money next year. So, of course, all of the money is always spent, regardless of real need. The end-of-year spending sprees are mind-blowing: there is intense organizational pressure to buy, buy, buy anything to "get the money spent." If you're good at shovelling money out the door, you're rewarded with ... even more money next year. Repeat this selection process for a few decades, and you've got yourself some seriously wacked-out budgets.

As if the terrible money management weren't bad enough, we still have a military that spends most of its time preparing for a replay of World War II or the Cold War. And every weapon system that served us well in those conflicts now has an entrenched bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring its continued growth: the fighter mafia, the bomber barons, the submariners, the naval aviators, the tankers, etc, etc, etc. These bureaucracies make darn sure that "their" systems aren't downsized or (god forbid) eliminated, regardless of modern relevance. We're going to have aircraft carriers forever (or until, like battleships in WW2, their utter worthlessness gets painfully demonstrated in combat). And while we fund these relics of missions past, we don't significantly adapt to meet TODAY's mission: less than 0.1% of GIs are trained to speak the language of the peoples whose "hearts and minds" we're currently seeking to win.

We spend a lot of time thinking up ways to beat the Chinese and the Russians, and we outspend them both by an order of magnitude. Meanwhile, the Chinese don't seem much inclined to invade anyone (except Taiwan, but the US doesn't even recognize it as a country), and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Russia wants to "liberate" the workers of the world anymore. But we still hold a loaded gun to the (former) communist heathens, just in case.

So, basically, we're maintaining a huge offensive force under the guise of defense. The world rightly sees this as a statement: "if you do anything we don't like, we can come and kill you." This may be a good thing for our national power, but I'm not sure that in this day and age, it isn't counterproductive to our security.

Don't you dare forget so quickly...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that this is the same group of traitors that just shat all over you yesterday when they voted to insulate big telcos from proper justice after they blatantly broke the law of the land.

Pork!

[dpilot]

What a porkbarrel spending bill! There are much wiser and better ways to spend this money. For instance, simplify the requirements for specifying no-bid contracts, and we could easily spend 10 times as much that way.

(For the sarcasm impaired, add appropriate emoticon here.)

Wow. _Almost_ a day in Iraq

[smchris]

Must have taken some real testicles to feel they could justify that much for "mere" science.

[ABC News: Cost of the Iraq War Hits $12B/Month]

Re:Spending that in Iraq every day?

[Bandman]

Hey, sorry to complain, but how is this off topic?

Right, because that's what the Constitution says

[unassimilatible]

To spend money on science and not the military.

I'd rather see my tax dollars go where Article I says they are supposed to, not where modern day liberals would like. Besides, the private sector is a hell of a lot more efficient.

No, it should be a local concern

[unassimilatible]

DoE is a giant, inefficient sinkhole that wastes 30 cents on the taxpayer dollar by filtering it through a large bureaucracy and redistributing it in ways that in no way consider how the actual taxpayer would like them spent in his local schools. DoE should be abolished. Education should be a local concern and the money spent accordingly.

At least if you claim to support Ron Paul.

The All or nothing problem.

[Zombie Ryushu]

A serious issue in Science education is the All or nothing brinkmanship put on by creationists. For example, the idea that if there is something we can't explain or don't understand. Then Science is wrong, and the Kent Hovinds' are correct. Because we make a mistake doesn't make all of science wrong, it just means we made a mistake and we'll try better next time.

But as far as I can tell, until people stop believing in Christian mythology, and thats what it is, mythology, stories, fairy tales.Then we will turn inward and destroy each other. The reason science education sucks in the US is because half the US population hates science and is actively fighting science education causing our school systems to descend into a state of civil war.

The earth is NOT 6000 years old, get the fuck over it!

Re:I had a room mate that became a highschool scie

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure we'll be reading about him real soon

Re:Right, because that's what the Constitution say

[mrchaotica]

I'd rather see my tax dollars go where Article I says they are supposed to

Article 1, eh? Read section 8, clause 8. It says that Congress is allowed to "Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts."

(Incidentally, it also goes on to provide an example of a way Congress might accomplish that -- creating copyright and patent monopolies -- but it doesn't say that that's the only way in which Congress might Promote Progress.)

how far will this go?

[Goldsmith]

Because of the debacle last year, the science agencies have lots of IOUs out there.

At my University, in physics and chemistry, we're owed at least $20 million (that's two departments at one school). Until the NSF decides that they either can or can't pay us, we can't look elsewhere in the government for money. So we work on those projects for free, look for private funding, or do something else.

Piggy "Scientists" Respond

[MSTCrow5429]

Om nom nom nom...moar blood of the taxpayer...brains...

Not enough

[Seraphim_72]

Some one tag this as not enough. Cripes why would you starve basic research? Morons. Sorry, Policy driven Morons.

You can't be serious

[unassimilatible]

Arguing for patents and copyright on Slashdot. Careful, you might get modded "troll."

I've read Article I many times, and taught it, in fact. You are doing quite a spin on that clause. These are enumerated powers, intended as a limit on federal power by listing exactly what Congress can do - 17 powers, that's it. What it actually says is that Congress is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Funny how you left out the "by." When you include that, it sounds like less of an example than a mandate of how Congress is to promote science and art. Unless you have some words from the Framers saying otherwise? Good luck with that. I seriously doubt the framers intended for the federal government to spend significant revenue on science research.

I thought Ron Paul was popular here?

Re:You can't be serious

[mrchaotica]

Arguing for patents and copyright on Slashdot.

I am not. I'm arguing for the goal espoused by the clause that coincidentally happens to allow them.

You are doing quite a spin on that clause.

Perhaps....

Funny how you left out the "by." When you include that, it sounds like less of an example than a mandate of how Congress is to promote science and art.

And that's exactly why I left out the "by." But even with it left in, it still could be read as listing an example, although I'll be the first to admit it's an unusual interpretation -- unusual, yet still compatible with a plain-language reading of the clause.

Of course, you can't really call it a "mandate" either because the whole thing is optional: congress may create patent and copyright monopolies, but it doesn't have to.

Unless you have some words from the Framers saying otherwise? Good luck with that.

Well, there's no doubt that some Framers wanted Progress to be Promoted, though I'll agree they were pretty much exclusively thinking of monopolies. I'm writing a paper on copyright at the moment, though, so I think I might do some research into that area.

I seriously doubt the framers intended for the federal government to spend significant revenue on science research.

The framers didn't intend for the Federal government to spend significant revenue on anything. But since the Commerce Clause shot that idea all to Hell anyway, why not?