Slashdot Mirror
Obama Answers Science Policy Questionnaire
thebestsophist writes "A couple months ago, Scientists and Engineers for America, Science Debate 2008, and a bunch of other science organizations sent McCain, Obama, and all the Congressional candidates a bunch of questions on science and technology. Topics included biosecurity, genetics research, and national security, as well as the more common questions on research and education. Well, Senator Obama just answered."
Senator McCain has not responded to the questionnaire at this point in time, but the site has a profile of his views and actions relating to science policy, which provides a good basis for comparing the candidates' stances. We've previously discussed the differences between the two candidates' technology platforms. According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
According to a recent NPR story, both candidates intend to keep politics out of science....
But only one side intend to keep science out of science...
(Credit to Soulskill for the alley-oop)
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
"Error establishing a database connection" - Slashdotting, it's simple science.
So, Sen Obama's entire science policy can be summed up by "Error establishing a database connection"?
Interesting.
The Internet is generally stupid
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:3vaVqFocGkUJ:sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/barack-obama-presidential-candidate/+http://sharp.sefora.org/people/presidential-candidates/barack-obama-presidential-candidate/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
She claims that "...I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be."
Apparently *educated* guesses (i.e. theories based on data) are not allowed either, or have the same status as mythological hooey.
Gosh, I feel more secure about the countries future and future science policies.
Does the community here accept that blocking funding to something is the same thing as blocking something? Or does blocking something require creating laws making some such or another illegal at the federal level (this probably being unconstitutional on the face of it).
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
of Obama's response?
You'd think a respectably geeky organization, as geeky as I'd expect the Scientists and Engineers for America to be, could handle a lazy, Sunday afternoon slashdotting.
I think the left wing is being tricked by pharma into paying for something that the private sector can easily afford. If religion were not in the equation, then, easily, the left would come against this as the handout to pharma that it is.
Is it that these cash strapped pharma companies might be able to pony up a few shillings toward that research. I mean, why do we have to have the Federal Government subsidize Merck? Doesn't Merck have enough money to collect and dissect human stem cells? For christ sakes, it's not like it costs a billion dollars to knock a chick up, and, you could always find women and men willing to part with their respective reproductive cells for a few bucks, for sure.
I mean, if embryonic stem cells could really cure cancer, paralysis, palsy and alzheimers, and can do so much, don't you think big Phara would and should pay for their research when they stand to make not billions, but trillions off of all of these miracle cures?
This is my sig.
...will Science stay out of Politics?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Embryonic stem cell research is being blocked. It makes sense for religious groups to be opposed to this on a fundamental level. When you have industries becoming dependent on materials from abortions for research, you create a financial incentive to support abortion. Now, most "pro-choice" people that I've met say that they fully support measures which create an environment that makes abortion less frequent. I can't imagine, then, a good reason to support allowing scientists to become dependent on tissues from aborted babies as that would have the exact opposite effect of what most pro-choicers I've met claim to want.
Furthermore, there is an ethics point of view here that you are willfully ignoring. You're obviously arguing from the perspective of a secularist, but what you're really saying is that any opinion that is based on religion is prima facie unacceptable in a democratic debate. Religious views may be absurd to you, and the morality based on "just a book," but so is secular morality. It's just based on one man's opinion, or feeble attempts to reconstruct religious morality without God; at least atheistic secularists like Michele Onfray have the balls to adopt a totally godless morality (though it tends to scare the shit out of many secularists who cling to religious morality like a security blanket). Bottom line is, secular arguments in science on matters of scientific **ethics** are no more valid than religious ones, as they are just one attempt to establish "what ought we do" which is a philosophical question that parallels the scientific one "what can we do?"
It's usually only the idiots who believe that science answers questions like "what ought we to do." Science is just a method for observing natural phenomenon. It cannot satisfactorally answer many fundamental philosophical questions that form the basis of law, morality and human interaction. Maybe you find religion to be flawed here too, and I can see why, even though I may disagree. However, it's just pure bullshit to pretend that science is capable of answering questions such as these, which have no ability to be tested and understood through the scientific method.
... until I see an ad on slashdot that tells me his position. Considering I'm looking at a McCain ad on this very page right now that is attacking Obama's foreign policy proposal, it shouldn't be long until the McCain camp launches online ads to tell us his plans for science as well.
Yes, I know its past time for me to install adblock. I do find it interesting how far the number of McCain ads exceed the Obama ads here, though. I'd say at least a 3-to-1 margin on slashdot.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I guarantee you that if an American pharma company said that they could make 10 billion dollars on stem cell products from embryonic research, about 3/4 of the Republican party would immediately sell out on any contemplated private ban on stem cell research, if such a ban were even constitutional. Yeah, there's some 1/4 of the GOP that would oppose stem cells under any circumstances but for the rest of us, its like, well, we don't the feds to pay for it because it is morally squeemish, but if the private sector is down with it, that's ok if it makes grammy walk again and our stock go up and we can then deal with our religious sentiments at the time we choose to sell out, and not before. And conversely, on the left, there's a minority of the Democrats that would ban all industrial activity whatsover, because it is bad for mother earth.
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
You know, there's enough to go around in both "party planks" to make one want to wretch. The thing to keep in mind is that on either side of the aisle, party planks are written by radicals and both sides thankfully and freely ignore them. Having party planks is stupid make work for party organizers to give them something important sounding to do, but in fact they are actually pretty meaningless, except to get the opposition riled up about some terrible thing that is in the plank. In other words, we can expect moveon to go send out spam about some terrible republican thing just as much as we can rush limbaugh go on about how terrible democrats are because these things are in their planks, and party insiders on both sides would say, well, really, "not a chance."
This is my sig.
Obama's responses seemed very logical and reasonably well informed, and really seem to hint at a great deal of integrity and his desire for transparency in government...
But my main question would be where is he going to get all the money for this?
By the time he's finished following through on the third question, I think he'd be out of funds.
Then you should wait until he does. Nice try, liberal.
My point is that big pharma can afford to pony up for basic research. Part of being a big business is to have the wealth to assess risks in the future and yes, they should pay for their own products. I mean, we give these pharma companies patent and copyright protections to incentivize them to do this research. In turn, they get to use this exclusivity to rape us on pricing, saying, "oh, but we're spending it all on research", then, they should spend it on the research. If you've got a drug patent, you have a monopoly just as much as AT&T did have back in the day and Ma Bell was kind enough to give us the likes of Claude Shannon, K&R, the transistor guys, and then some. I think its not unreasonable to expect that a company in the pharma business to accept the risks that go with pure research, otherwise, patents are sorta pointless, aren't they?
This is my sig.
It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.
I thought the bulk of us were of the libertarian persuasion.
I, for one, don't like Obama or McCain.. Barr '08!
Where is Score:+5, Horny?
The stem cells don't come from abortions, they come from the embryos grown in test tubes in fertility clinics. They usually grow upwards of 10 "just in case", and freeze the rest. The majority of these "expire" in the freezer, at least they expire for the purpose for which they are intended. They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.
If I were to try to diagnose the political persuasion of /.ers, I'd go with some mixture of libertarianism (in terms of individual freedom) with a smattering of liberalism (mostly on the environmental/foreign policy front). In any case, I'd say most of us hate the idea of a police state, but don't want Big Bad Corporate America to be free to pollute and compete willy-nilly.
But maybe I'm projecting.
Actually, the candidates will not "keep politics out of science". Sarah Palin (Cheney in a skirt) is so owned by the oil industry, that she is unwilling to admit that global warming might be related to burning fossil fuels.
So no, 1. they're not going to keep religion out of politics.
And 2. they're not going to keep politics out of science.
But hopefully in the spirit of Rock, Paper, Scissors...
Post it right here please. Thanks.
It's the DNS server that's not responding!
We've all seen Slashdot take down webservers, but a DNS server? That's impressive!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I almost wish I hadn't posted, just so I could have modded you up myself. I salute your grasp of reality.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Politics is for everyone - at least, in any FREE country it is.
I live in Bosnia.
I am yet to see a single McCain ad here. Or Obama's for that matter.
So, my guess is that there is something to do with the geographical location of your IP address.
Hmm.. I wonder what do the Mideastern countries (where a lot of US soldiers are at the moment) and people surfing from behind the .mil and .gov domains see?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There is a moral system which can reliably answer any ethical question with enough data in a logical and dare I say "scientific" manner. Most slashdotters would probably object to it, since like Economics it's not necessarily intuitive, and does not embrace "rights" as an absolute phenomenon. It's called Utilitarianism.
But embryonic stem cell research does not depend on material from abortions. By the time that an embryo has developed to the point that a woman even knows that she's pregnant, the embryo is no longer useful for stem cell research. "Embryonic" stem cell research uses blastocysts that were generated for in-vitro fertilization but never implanted. These are quite literally cells that can't develop into babies without considerable further medical intervention.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
What we need is an electoral lottery.
I doubt that would work. If you set things up so that there is an obvious and single top position, then the people who want power will keep trying to game the system.
Instead, you have to change the system so it doesn't look so much like a primate dominance hierarchy. Or at least so the parts that look like primate dominance hierarchies aren't particularly effective places to get things done.
Personally, I'd start by pushing a lot of the money and power out of the federal government and back to the states, so we have 50 high positions instead of 1. The feds can keep common defense, safeguarding rights and elections, and a lot of informational and coordinating roles. But a lot of what they now do can be done just as well by people more directly responsible to their voters.
Historically, people used to speak of "these united states" rather than "The United States". I'd love to see us get back to that.
I came to Slashdot assuming that the nanosecond McSame added a creationist to the ticket, there'd be a lot less ... politeness. So, do most people here just assume the creationism is posturing?
Right.
And, ya know, what I don't need in my life is $20,000 wages. I need $500,000, to live comfortably! I need close relations with hot babes and a million rich and powerful friends. So, until all that comes to me suddenly, I'm going to sit back and do nothing, because why would you try and work towards that?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
The point really is that we need to stop framing debates based upon what the radicals of either side of the aisle are telling us to frame them as and to start and think for ourselves.
Can most people do this?
What makes radicals, in most cases, is people choosing symbolism over reality.
Yet we know that dumb people or primitive people -- witchcraft, witch-hunting, superstition, dualistic religion -- will pick symbolism over reality.
So the average citizen "thinking for himself" could result in a worst-case scenario of what you describe, don't you think?
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
What is your position on pussy?
The preferred position is not /on/ it at all...
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.
Pink Floyd - Sheep
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
One thing I've realized about Obama is, the guy will promise you ANYTHING to get elected. It became clear during his acceptance speech. In less than 30 minutes he promised to lower taxes, eliminate the dependency on foreign oil, improve the education and give health care to everyone for free. After that I stopped listening. Achieving one of those things would be a stretch goal, achieving them all is downright impossible, and he knows it (and if he doesn't - god help us all).
4 years from now Republicans will have a field day with this guy and the results won't be pretty.
That said, he's STILL a heck of a lot better than McCain, particularly now when McCains VP pick is known.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
You're never going to get "religion" out of science, because science must always be governed by ethical concerns, and ethics in the west, especially the United States, is inherently tied to our religious values because our religion has influenced our ideas of ethics for thousands of years.
I realize Slashdot has a heavy Libertarian bent, with a large sympathetic atheist wing, but Slashdot is not representative of the public as a whole. Quite the opposite. So if you're hoping to let "science" work with no ethical boundaries (as most see them), then you're out of luck. Never gonna happen, at least not in this country.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
They would otherwise be trashed, and you have fallen for the pro-life propaganda if you think they are from abortions.
And what happens when embryonic stem cell research becomes widespread? There's a limited supply of those IVF embryos. Even with people making more of them in clinics, if ESC research really takes off, those sources alone won't be able to meet demand. What do you do then?
Either encourage abortions as sources, or grow them in factory conditions, a Pandora's Box with ethical implications that would make even Aldous Huxley shudder.
I hate to rip off a pop culture reference, but recall the first Matrix movie: "I've seen fields, Neo, vast fields, where humans aren't born. They're grown".
Think about it. If we have to resort to the factory approach, then we're literally creating human life for the sole purpose of harvesting it for destruction in huge labs. If that doesn't give your conscience pause, then nothing anyone says will either.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Christianity has been the cause or justification for holy wars, murder, rape, abortion, torture, and a host of other bad things. Yes, I know this is not what it means to be a Christian, but this is a result of Christianity, and it is with the end result that Utilitarians are concerned.
How do you, "from a purely utilitarian point of view," weigh all the good that has come from Christianity against all the bad that has come with it? How do you even know all the good and bad that has been caused by or allowed because of Christianity? How do you know what would have happened if a different faith was followed? How do you know what will happen in the future so that you can judge whether believing in Jesus is superior to a belief in other systems?
Obama is self-centered!? Are you serious? I guess all the good he did in Chicago was for himself then. You want to talk about self-centered, let's talk about McCain's VP Sarah Palin who chose to travel on a self-promotion tour while she was late into a pregnancy (without telling anyone) and her child wound up to have down syndrome. But no, Obama is the one who is self-centered! LMFAO! Instead of making such ridiculous claims how about you back them up?
So let me get this straight, you want to elect people who aren't 'hyper-ambitious'. You think that by holding an electoral 'lottery' we'll be better off, and yet by doing so we have no fucking clue who we might end up with and whether or not they might be even worse than the people there now? LMFAO AGAIN. Yea, +Interesting, insofar as a piece of steaming shit that looks like a horse is interesting.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
It would be kind of silly for Obama to do much advertising on Slashdot. "Preaching to the choir", I believe it's called.
I'm not sure how accurate that is. There is no shortage of so-called "libertarians" here on slashdot, arguing for the virtues of "the invisible hand of the market". Just look at all the chatter that comes up anytime Ron Paul is mentioned in a story here...
And besides, if the bulk of the slashdot reader population was liberal, why would it be even worthwhile for McCain to run Obama attack ads here? I don't know of many liberals who want to ignore foreign diplomacy opportunities or chastise Obama as "the world's biggest celebrity".
And then if you check the slashdot list of stories tagged "slashkos" you'll see how many stories have been assaulted by readers for being too liberal. So clearly there are plenty of conservative / libertarian readers here who feel that slashdot is too liberal. Yet I don't see a "drudgedot" or anything of that nature used to tag stories that are too conservative (as well there ought to be)...
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
earlier you have forgotten that pageants tend to be a bit stupid ?
come now there are even scientific research into this, finding the reason for less activity in mental area as having many things ready made for them because of the beauty factor.
this may be slashdot. but concept is irrelevant of locality or time. beautiful women (and men) will always have it easier in life, and tend to resort to mental solutions to their problems in a lesser extent than others, because society makes life for them easier.
Read radical news here
His responses can be found here, but in case of another slashdotting, here is the list. Please excuse the formatting, I am not an html expert.
Barack Obama's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America
1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America's continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?
Ensuring that the U.S. continues to lead the world in science and technology will be a central priority for my administration. Our talent for innovation is still the envy of the world, but we face unprecedented challenges that demand new approaches. For example, the U.S. annually imports $53 billion more in advanced technology products than we export. China is now the world's number one high technology exporter. This competitive situation may only worsen over time because the number of U.S. students pursuing technical careers is declining. The U.S. ranks 17th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; we were in third place thirty years ago.
My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.
A vigorous research and development program depends on encouraging talented people to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and giving them the support they need to reach their potential. My administration will work to guarantee to students access to strong science curriculum at all grade levels so they graduate knowing how science works - using hands-on, IT-enhanced education. As president, I will launch a Service Scholarship program that pays undergraduate or graduate teaching education costs for those who commit to teaching in a high-need school, and I will prioritize math and science teachers. Additionally, my proposal to create Teacher Residency Academies will also add 30,000 new teachers to high-need schools - training thousands of science and math teachers. I will also expand access to higher education, work to draw more of these students into science and engineering, and increase National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate fellowships. My proposals for providing broadband Internet connections for all Americans across the country will help ensure that more students are able to bolster their STEM achievement.
Progress in science and technology must be backed with programs ensuring that U.S. businesses have strong incentives to convert advances quickly into new business opportunities and jobs. To do this, my administration will make the R&D tax credit permanent.
2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change-a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?
There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively. First, the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a gr
sweden isnt on this planet. you people are totally living a different life, or far into the future.
Read radical news here
thats a whole new approach to education that may cut education costs for everyone drastically and shorten the time spent in education.
Read radical news here
pull the evidence that will make the proposition of creation a 90% probability, so it can be considered on par with ANY scientific THEORY.
do not bring forth babblings of people from middle east from 4000 years ago in the process though.
Read radical news here
she IS in bed with oil companies and even she doesnt deny it, entire alaska is a playground for oil.
http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2008/08/palin-in-bed-with-transcanada.html
Read radical news here
Lovecraftian horrors are so much FUN.
You would interfere with a scientific experiment that involved, say, torture or murder even though that could be said to be bringing politics (or morals, perhaps from belief in God) into science.
I'd say opposition toward stem cell research falls into the same category: someone tries to stop it because they consider it to be morally wrong.
I completely agree with your sentiment. The big problem preventing that from happening, as I see it, is the federal highway system. The states can't afford maintenance on their own so they can be forced into submission with the threat of a loss of federal funds (the typical example is MADD lobbying to raise the drinking age via the National Minimum Drinking Age Act).
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
And history is not just limited to what you see on MTV.
The difference today is that religion is supposedly separated from government. When it isn't, it looks very much like contemporary Iran. Which is bad, mainly to iranians.
It's probably nothing, but there are strong rumors of the child being actually her daughter's. Who just happened to have "mono" and miss school for months just up to the time of her "brother."
What are you smoking? Pharmaceutical companies never spend money on basic research, period. They spend money on marketing and occasionally FDA approval.
Moreover, large companies are inherently risk averse because management is inherently risk averse (btw, stock holders are strongly pro-risk, but bond holders are risk averse too). So big companies compete for market capture, not market creation. In consequence, pharmaceutical companies are more interested in capturing existing profitable markets than building new ones. So you see them develop marginally improved replacements for drugs whose patents are expiring.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You would interfere with a scientific experiment that involved, say, torture or murder even though that could be said to be bringing politics (or morals, perhaps from belief in God) into science.
No, that would simply be applying the law. You know, that thing people need to comply with unless they're a friend of Dick Cheney.
I'd say opposition toward stem cell research falls into the same category: someone tries to stop it because they consider it to be morally wrong.
If someone considers something they don't understand to be morally wrong, is their opinion relevant? Most religious groups oppose scientific progress in general because they are afraid the research will expose the falsehoods their faith is based on. That would undermine the power the religious leaders have over the followers, so they try to get the sheep mobilised against the research, despite being completely igorant about the subject.
99% of people who oppose stem cell research don't know even what a stem cell is.
It's no coincidence that Adam and Even were kicked out of Eden for eating the fruit of knowledge. God doesn't like smart people; that's why he made so many morons.
What are the odds? I see you got modded up, but what, exactly are the odds? I don't see anything insightful at all about uninformed, morbid speculation totally devoid of facts.
I mean, you say the "odds aren't good" what does that mean? It's just one kind of indefinable slander that I've seen, and it's disgusting. It's really sleazy to say something like that, leave it unquantified, then use your baseless speculation as a point of argument.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Down's Syndrome is caused by bad eggs, and thus happens at conception. Whether she traveled late in her pregnancy would have no bearing on the matter.
Don't get me wrong...I'd never vote for a creationist loon, but please don't sling mud that is easily discounted. It just looks your side look bad.
The cake is a pie
"The problem with that is it's the Radicals from the GOP that are currently buttfucking our country like it's a new inmate, with the support of the rest of the party.
I started thinking for myself, and I came to the conclusion that any group that can put forth and support Bush is a group that isn't worth even a second chance no matter how nice the non-crazies are."
I'm sorry, but that's not the problem. The problem is too many people like yourself who think sying things like this won't turn people away from your arguments, no matter how correct. You'll probably evince no concern for those people as they don't "get it" anyway, but what good is being right when the people you need behind you would rather tell you to shut up, stop bellowing like a drunk frat boy, and let the adults discuss things than listne to a single word you have to say?
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Cancer prognosis isn't exactly something unstudied, and having had multiple melanomas removed is obviously worse for the odds than not having had melanoma at all.
I'd have to dig up an account to get journal access to quote recent numbers, but if I recall correctly the 5-year prognosis for people over 70 with a localized melanoma removed is somewhere around a 70-75% survival rate. That's not a death sentence, but it's not great.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"What the fuck is there to "debate" about creationism? "
Is it science (no)? Is it relevant to current society (yes)? Does it match the evidence (no)? What is it's cultural significance, how should it influence policy, where should it be taught, and the list goes on.
Not eveyone thinks what you think as strongly as you do. How do you propose to define these isues for them without debate? Are you going to curse at them until they get it? The fact that you think there "doesn't seem to be a whole lot to debate" definitivley proves the debate is necessary.
Or are you happy sitting back, assured you're right while creationists are activley promoting their side?
One last thing. Creationism is beleived by a large number of people. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people seek to squash debate as though that makes their beliefs, and the societal effects of their beleifs, go away. They are influencing society every day, and if nothing else, it is necessary to promote a counterpoint in order to mitigate those societal effects.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
He's already survived seven years.
That you, before looking it up, concluded anything about his odds proves my point. You were basing your opinions on what you heard, and what you heard is specifically crafted to make you think the worst.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
But, the main reason not to teach creation myths as facts in publically funded schools is that you may miss some citizens' versions of the myths.
I think that I've highlighted a much simpler reason not to have them in science classrooms. Put it in English, mythology, history classes if you want.
Evolution belongs in a science room because it's a valid, accepted scientific theory, based on scientific principals, borne out in peer reviewed experiments and studies.
The various flavors of 'intelligent design' don't pass this standard. There's no serious study in ID in colleges. There's no breakthroughs associated with the theory. It doesn't fit observed facts as well as evolution.
Note: I will FULLY ADMIT that evolution doesn't really explain the origins of life. The way it's taught in class is like teaching Newtonian physics to students instead of Einsteinian physics - you can't expect the average grade school student to understand more without a thorough backing in stuff like biochemistry - which they don't have yet; many never will. Some of the funky DNA exchange stuff bacteria do, for example. It's very general for a reason.
I don't read AC A human right
"As to the Dickey amendment--- that was written by a Republican Congressman and attached to a major appropriations bill (that's what "rider" means). Clinton signed it because there's no line-item veto, and thus a President sometimes has to accept undesirable riders when the alternative is killing an important bill"
Exactly what you asked for, you're welcome.
Of course, this is where you tell us it's not an excuse right? Because "I know what he did was wrong, but he had to because _____" is, somehow, not an excuse.
It was a bad policy, and I'm well past the point where "it had a rider" is a good enough reason not to veto it. The only reason something like that doesn't get vetoed is when the person is more concerned about getting re-elected than making good policy, and that crap has to stop.
And it won't until people like you and OP stop making excuses for your people.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
Napoleon: Monsieur Laplace, you have written a treatise about the solar system [Celestial Mechanics] without mentioning its author.
Laplace: Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis.
At least, that's what the debate is about. The blind faith people are afraid that, if this Darwin stuff is taught, that their kids may not end up being blind faith people. So, somehow we need to give these kids an education while keeping them in the blind faith camp.
Aside from the fact that McCain in 2000 and McCain in 2008 have the exact opposite views on almost every single subject... you really can't trust anything a Republican says. They have proven, time and again, that what they promise to do is the exact opposite of what they actually do.
The stem cells don't come from abortions, they come from the embryos grown in test tubes in fertility clinics.
And how do they make those human embryos, by combining sperm and egg. They are potential human forms which are terminated, they are aborted. Whether you think that's right or not (I'm guessing most here couldn't care less). Calling it "expiring" is a little stupid IMO.
I guess this is flamebait, but it's still factual. What AC means is that the stems cells come from very early abortions (preimplantation) and so in his opinion they don't count.
It isn't a particularly controversial statement among doctors that "elderly patients who have had multiple melanomas are at significant risk of dying due to cancer". The exact numbers depend on how exactly you define the patient groups, what sorts of time horizon you're looking for, which risk factors you control for, etc., but nobody disputes that the risk of death is fairly significant.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The question that logically follows is, "Do we have the resources to pull it off in a decade, and how will you ensure that the next President won't destroy them in his first 2 years in office, or that the next sessions of Congress won't during that decade?"
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Why don't we discuss academic qualifications? Oh, I know why -- because it makes you look stupid!
Palin: BA in journalism that took her 5 years at U of Idaho
Obama: BA from Columbia, JD from Harvard, Editor in Chief of the FUCKING HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Constitutional Law professor
I know you Republicans think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper, but you know what? The knowledge that Obama understands it is very reassuring to me given the flagrant abuses of the Constitution we've endured in the last 7 years.
+++ATH0
That is an interesting idea. I am in a blue state (very blue). I was going to try from a system at my alma mater, but that is also a blue state. It would be interesting to know how it assigns ads.
Though really I suspect that as much as McCain's group would love to pick up the state I live in (and perhaps part of what they were thinking with their VP pick), they don't have a chance here. I'd be astonished if he even came here to campaign.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You really don't know much about lotteries as they pertain to jury selection, do you? We would in fact have some "fucking clue", at least as much as we have now. Since the process would also in fact guarantee that the hyper-ambitious would be virtually denied a seat at that initial table, that initial pool would be a much more accurate cross-section of the citizenry; in particular, it would be a more accurate ethical cross-section. The hyper-ambitious are ethically dubious, including Obama - follow FactCheck much? - and in almost no case are they ever ethically representative of the populace; they tend to be willing to do ANYTHING to first get and then keep public - or corporate - office. That includes forsaking ethics when it's convenient. McCain has been doing this in spades, but so too has Obama. He's no Messiah for any Party.
I'm not saying there aren't rare exceptions to this rule - Dennis Kucinich and perhaps Jim McDermott (D-WA) I'd count among those - but they are in fact exceptions. You're uninformed if you think can reverse that dynamic without first having some sort of revolution first, especially since the self-centered people in office now aren't going to implement anything that truly eliminates their advantage.
Electoral lotteries would remove that advantage. We'll have to start the revolution first. I'm throwing the first stone.
I think you insinuated that her traveling caused her baby to get Down's Syndrome (and thus she's selfish.. I guess?). Unfortunately the baby was fated to get Down's when it was conceived, and no amount of traveling could have altered the kid's chromosome count.
Hah, he also answered about his own experience:
http://obaminate.blogspot.com/
stems cells come from very early abortions (preimplantation)
If one follows that route of logic too far, pretty soon a woman's uterus becomes a crime scene if she has a miscarriage.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
You all amaze me. The entire thread is nearly devoted either Sarah's ass, melanoma, barbie, the klan, religion on stem cells and along the way the entire point of the article turned into a typical rant on:
HuffingtonPost--that bastion of self-asorbed douchebags current on today's fashion not unlike DIGG where their fellow douchebags are current on tech gear devoted to tit's and ass.
This almost makes one want to hang out at the Linux Kernel Developer List.
Almost.
They are just elective, as they should be. But any kid wanting to learn comparative religion can do so.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Even if you word the question in a way to try to give them an "out" by opting for some sort of theistically-guided evolution (the official modern position of the Catholic and Orthodox churches and many mainline Protestant ones), and try to tie down creationism specifically to young-earth creationism (humans were created within the past 10,000 years), a plurality of Americans, nearly a majority, opt for creationism.
The wording Gallup has been using for years when asking the question is this:
"Which one of the following statements come closest to your views about the origin and development of human beings? Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process (or) Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process (or) God created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?"
The results in 2007 were: 30% for God-guided evolution, 13% for without-God evolution, and 48% for "created in present form within the last 10,000 years".
On the plus side, and contrary to what you might expect, fewer creationists than fans of evolution consider it an issue determining their vote. In 2007, 15% of people said they'd be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who did not believe in evolution, whereas 29% said they'd be less likely (53% said it wouldn't make a difference to their vote). So adopting a creationist position is a net loss for politicians on a national scale.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
they never implanted into a uterus, they are not viable "fetuses" at that point. No abortion occurred.
They are merely embryos. The only "potential" they have is if the first implants don't take, otherwise they rot on the shelf and no longer have the possibility of developing into viable life.
Even though they "expired" on the shelf so far as growing into a child is concerned, the stem cells are still worth something.
They are not the product of abortions, they are, even by the wingnut view you posted, at best the victims of death by negligence.
But embryonic stem cells pose a political challenge for McCain. Although Holtz-Eakin says McCain is anti-abortion, he has broken with the anti-abortion movement on the embryonic stem cell issue and joined Democrats in supporting a bill that would expand federal funding for stem-cell research.
Holtz-Eakin says the Arizona senator still favors such legislation, but hopes new research will make it unnecessary. McCain's "hope is that we may reach the day when we no longer need to use embryonic stem cells as the foundation of this particular line of research, where we can move to the more recent advances and take away the tough decisions about life versus science," he said.
The fact is that embryos are not alive. I liked McCain in 2000, but he's no longer a straight shooter. Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, these days.
Holtz-Eakin says McCain's time in the Senate has made him comfortable with scientists who may have politically unwelcome views. "He [McCain] has always felt that sound science is a foundation of good public policy," he said. "He believes deeply that the science should be the science. Legislators can then learn from that science, and go forward and deliver good public policies."
Correct, but hardly substantive enough to be worth saying, nor of reading for that matter. The statement is not very specific. I think McCain is as ill-informed of science generally as he admits to being of the dismal science, economics, and this article did nothing to alter that opinion.
As for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barnes says an Obama administration would be much more transparent, so it would be hard to suppress or distort scientific findings. "We're talking about things like videotaping various proceedings so everyone can see it," she said. "Using technology to not only watch, but also engage with the federal government so they have a better sense of what's going on."
The word "transparent" is vague and over-used (NB: and the choice of the author, not of the Obama staffer), but "videotaping" is a specific proposal, and in a couple lines, Obama's spokesperson committed not only to making more information available to us, but to a means of doing it. That's the kind of straight answer I want in return for my tax dollars.
"I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
If one follows that route of logic too far, pretty soon a woman's uterus becomes a crime scene if she has a miscarriage.
You're not thinking big enough. According to the Christian Coalition, life begins when the woman's bra strap is unhooked.
They are potential human forms which are terminated, they are aborted.
Technically, no. To abort something is to interrupt the normal sequence. If a woman is pregnant and you do nothing, you generally get a person. If you fertilize some eggs in a test tube and then do nothing, no person results.
To me, a fertilized egg doesn't really qualify as a potential new human. Or maybe it does very slightly, sort of like a prom night and a 12-pack of wine coolers does.
A: I have more hair than I really have.
B: You're all stupid enough to believe I have more hair than I really have.
C: I don't mind looking like a tit - so long as no-one believes I've lost a bit of hair because I'm older than Methusilah.
Rumors of McCain's illegitimate black child didn't hurt him did they ... oh wait it did. Even though the child was adopted. Funny, eh.
Just saying.
Some may not believe it, but the Federal government has no business in education, energy policy, the markets, welfare, health care, or local law enforcement. Those things are supposed to be off-limits to the central government.
and they almost always have good plans. But do they stick to them? So what they say is important, but the history of how much of what they've said compared to what they've actually done is more important.
In case you haven't notice, politics and religion are now practically the same thing in the US - Evangelical Christians == Republicans. That's why major party platforms like stands on abortion, stem cells, etc. boil down to the politicians religious beliefs.
If you don't like any of the answers, do let him know. He'll blame it
on his aids, retract the answer & give you new ones.
This is all carefully written to sound good but in reality it's all horsesh*t. His platform is all about increasing government interference. A f*cking CTO for the whole government?! Now we'll have another useless bureaucracy with hundreds of overpaid people that you can never get rid of.
Oh and btw, for Obama to say that he's going to eliminate capital gains taxes on small business is a complete crock of whale sh*t. A business doesn't have capital gains unless it sells off assets like land or intellectual property. You want to do something right? Make more R&D money tax exempt.
The government has one job when it comes to science and technology: STAY OUT OF IT!!!
Did you know that Kennedy's science adviser stated that sending humans to the moon was a waste of money? And you want more morons like that deciding what the country should spend money on?
Mod. Parent. Insightful.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
The same people who wail about abortion and stem cell research seem blind to the genetic engineering of their food all around them. "What? Monsanto genetically modified soybeans and screwed up the soybean market to the point where finding organic non-GMO soy is nearly impossible? Tell me it ain't so!"
I just have to laugh every time I see an article about protests concerning abortion and stem-cell research when there is virtually no air time given to GMOs.
Hopefully, that will change soon.
If you don't like software patents, consider abolishing patents on life, too. I can just see the argument in the PTO:
PTO: Sorry, sir. We can't patent life.
Monsanto: But, but, but...we spent hundreds of millions on this. And besides, there's no prior art on this!
PTO: Sir, the prior art *is* life.
The seed is the new bomb at the rate we're going with GMOs.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Who the hell cares?
person A: I think the puppet on the left represents my interests.
person B: I think the puppet on the right represents my interests.
The US elections are a farce. It's Pespi vs. Coke. A two party democracy is a contradiction in terms. (and there other parties, to be fair, but they all have jack shit chance of winning so the point remains moot)
"Actually, I think he was more concerned with passing the appropriations bills for the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. The Republicans know these bills are critical, and vetoing them would wreak havoc with the operation of government."
Actually, if they were that important, they'd have passed after a veto that forced a removal of the rider.
WHy is it that this excuse also gets propagated as thought it's true? If the bills are that important, they'll get passed. Acting like they need the rider kind of destroys the argument that they are important.
Lastly
"The Republicans also knew that a veto over a small rider --- however well deserved --- would probably not force them to remove the language, since it would only take a few "pragmatic" Democrats in Congress to side with them and override the veto"
I don't see anything +5 insightful about baseless specualtion on your part. You could not, and do not, know that any of that is true, and regarding overriding the veto, do you know how many votes that takes? It's far more than "a few pragmamtic Democrats".
What is insightful about more excuses and incorrect math by this poster?
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
I honestly couldn't care less about what you think is "particularly controversial" or not. I care about deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to muddy up a candidate.
Your inability to see the difference again proves my point, you're arguing that it's ok to deliberately misrepresent the stae of Mccain's health because the misrepresentation is true, just not in Mccain's case.
And I'm telling you that's bullshit, and you should know better.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
I notice you fail to admit it was exuse making. My entire point was that people like you make excuses for your people because it's more important to be right than to do right.
Your dismissal of my points, in total opposition to logic and fact (specifically your "few prgamatic Democrats comment which shows your ignorance of the veto process) proves that it's more important for you to defend the bad decisions of your candidate than hold them to a standard.
And the moderation of your excuse making just reinforces how many partisans are willing ot look the other way because it's their guy messing up.
Excuses are excuses. Saying "actually" get's you +5 on a partisan filled left leaning web board, but it doesn't change the reality that you're accepting crap excuses and making them yourself.
To quote LongNoi "QZTR was right and won't leave me alone because I called him a moron when I was wrong" FYS
That the 2nd Amendment explicitly gives gun ownership rights to individuals, not just militias.
He has said repeatedly that it makes sense for gun restrictions to be different in different areas. I don't think most people disagree with him.
+++ATH0