Slashdot Mirror
A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates
Marissa Fessenden writes about a campaign to get Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to address important scientific issues in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. ScienceDebate.org and Scientific American have posed a set of questions to the candidates, as well as congressional leaders, and they're rallying support for those questions to be answered before the election. The responses will be published and graded for citizens to see. The questions include topics such as biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy. This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
Why? One can't talk or think without the teleprompter and other will quote the Old Testament.
No good deed goes unpunished.
What about Ron Paul? He is not out yet. I have yet to see any evidence of him dropping out of the race.
This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
The problem is that the questions aren't about scientific "literacy". They're about policy (see article title). This is why the questions are the standard pap about global warming, research funding (into global warming, presumably), education ("more funding" is probably the answer they want to hear), energy (read: wind farms and other rentseeking green crap), water (mostly a state responsibility anyway), the usual fact-deprived bollocks about "ocean health", and "science in public policy", which means something like "how will you better persecute heretics who don't buy into the global warming fraud?".
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda. However, this says more about the Republican party's interest in science than it does about ScienceDebate.org's political bias.
You mean to say that in America you elect presidents who have no stated policy on these critical questions? Well that explains it....
Evolution is one of the most hotly contested science issues in politics, but they didn't have the stones to ask about it. Were they afraid of something, or did they just not expect a decent answer out of it?
Here is what I would love to see.
I big grid with specific topics for the rows.
Then have the following columns titles. Federal, State, County, City, Family, Individual.
For each topic the candidate has to put where they think that control should exist.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Group of people interested in [science] want a debate about extending government control over your life in the name of [science].
Replace [science] with religion, health, nutrition, education, morals, national security, the environment, commerce, or any other issue you want. It's all essentially the same. The answers should be the same too: "No, we'll make our own choices."
There's no need for any special debates for [science].
Science debates are for sophisticated and educated societies. All Romney would have to do to solidify his voting base is mention that the earth was created 6000 years ago, that humans aren't causing Global Warming, and that corn is healthy as a staple crop and answer to our oil needs.
And who would believe a Muslim illegal immigrant invader like Barack Hussein Osama (being sarcastic).
In a race with almost all scientists part of one party's ideology, and those rejecting science in favor of religion in the other party, I really don't see how a science debate will help either candidate.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
How about implementing safer forms of nuclear power?
Such a technology does exist: the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a prototype of which was tested in the 1960's and early 1970's at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with very promising results for power generation but was discontinued because it couldn't generate uranium-235 and plutonium-239 needed for nuclear weapons production.
There are numerous advantages to LFTR nuclear power plants, as I've mentioned in other posts in the recent past. And it uses thorium-232, which is quite abundant in nature, so finding it is not an issue. (Indeed, China wants this technology because they can't figure out what to do with all that thorium ore dug out as part of China's extensive rare Earth mining program.)
Wind and solar power may be nice, but large installations of wind turbines could pose a major hazard to birds and most large-scale solar power array installations take up huge swaths of land. Meanwhile, a modern LFTR using Brayton turbines to generate power takes up a very small amount of land just to generate 500 to 1,000 MW, which means very cheap construction costs.
The first question that needs to be asked in any science policy among presidental candidates is,
What is your stance on Miracles as relates to the overall state of American science education?
Neither Mitt Romney nor Barack Obama are scientists. And, neither of them are going to be "in charge" of science policy. They are going to hire people to do that for them.
Why not get the people they would hire as science policy advisers to debate?
A science debate between Romney and Obama would be nothing more than a highlight of their personal beliefs about things like abortion, stem cell research, and so on, which we already know. Obama is pro-choice and Romney is pro-life. Obama is for stem cell research and Romney is against. Pretty predictable and straightforward stuff.
Neither would be able to speak to the nitty gritty that we care about.
There's no such thing as global warming... or kittens.
Do NOT let the candidates know the questions ahead of time - any parrot can rattle off speeches. It takes a real mind to answer real questions without filibustering the question into the ground, while seeming to sheeple that you did in fact answer the question.
Which is why it becomes important to determine(admittedly by way of various imperfect proxy measures) what their chosen science minions will do for them...
What's with all that sciency guff?
I want a candidate with character, morals, one who represents my beliefs on abortion and on the deficit and whether or not we should reduce spending or increase taxes. Because the other side is too stupid and ignorant to represent this country and steer it in the right direction! The other side has the wrong values and they are just going to drive this country into the toilet!!
We don't need no science debate! That's just for eggheads! Why the Chinese leadership is made up almost entirely of scientists and engineers and look at them!
-John and Jane Q. Public.
Geniuses like Todd Akin sits on Science Committee and the other VP candidate has aligned with Todd's views over 30 times over related issues.
Whatever Obama says can't be more stupid than what the opponents can cook up.
GOP's only hope in a discussion like that is that the audience would be even more stupid and would not notice all the gaffes made.
We are no longer electing a person we are electing an ideology.
1. Innovation and the Economy: Democrats, More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
2. Climate Change: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
3. Research and the Future: Democrats,More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
4. Pandemics and Biosecurity: Democrats, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, From a federal funded scientist. Republicans, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, from a drug company scientist.
5. Education: Democrates, More money into schools, we will put some stupid metrics to show that it works. Republicans, vouchers for private schools, all competition of schools force them to improve.
6. Energy: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
7. Food: Democrats, screw scientific results they are just from some corporate drone anyways, ban anything that sounds scary. Republicans let it all go out, and lets not try to measure it, until enough people are dying.
8. Fresh Water: Democrats, Find the most polluted areas spend a lot of money to clean it up (It cannot be used for drinking, or fishing. But there is a 50% reduction of pollution!!!), and show a nice big percentage number to show the improvement. Republicans, tell the population to buy water cleaning systems for their house.
9. The Internet: Democrats, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them More Open, but we tax it more. Republicans, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them, less open but no taxes.
10. Ocean Health: Democrats, heavy restrictions on all companies. Republicans, The Ocean is in in international waters... Not our concern.
11. Science in Public Policy: Both sides will give some BS answer and only cite science when it is for their benefit. Discredit the source when it isn't.
12. Space: Democrats, Wast of Time and Money. Republicans, a military strategy.
13. Critical Natural Resources: Democrats Put money in protecting or expanding and regulating the users. Republicans, Supply and Demmand will correct itself, once becomes to scarce price will rise high enough for alternative.
14. Vaccination and public health: Democrats, force it on everyone screw what their religion or belief is. Republicans let people decide for themselves, and allow the spread of misinformation too.
We are no longer getting candidates for leaders, we are getting ideology enforcers.
Democrats, Will spend want to spend more money to solve the problem, money will solve all problems.
Republicans, Will want private business to solve the problem, businesses can solve all problem.
What we need is a leader not an ideology. Who can look at these issues and say. If we change a process here we may be able to solve a problem without that much money. Or this area does have a good process but it needs some more money to reach critical mass. Analysis when there is policies are in conflict with each other and try to measure the trade offs.
But one of those guys would be those horrible moderates, or as we call them Flip Floppers. They do crazy things like listen to both sides, and use their own mind to come up with a solution. We don't want one of those people to rule our country. We want easy to digest sound bytes that follows a consistent ideology. Because a simple ideology will solve all our problems, the problem is always the other guy who will not allow us to implement our ideology.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
We got AT&T on one side and Microsoft on the other. Obama and Romney hardly need to be mentioned. They will follow their marching orders these and other BigCorps.
Slashdot could do a lot more to provoke people to look for alternatives to these bozos instead of just giving them all this free press. We already know that whatever they claim as "policy" does not come from the candidates, but from their bosses. Whatever they say, especially the outrageous stuff, is just designed to distract us from noticing what they do. So please, stop shilling for them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Here is what it would look like
John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
You can't handle the truth.
28 out of 435 And most are MDs or engineers - one PhD in Mathematics.
And there are probably less after the Tea Baggers got done in '10.
Absolutely. The first test will be how each candidate responds to the debate proposal itself. Will either or both accept and, if so, will it be with a ton of conditions and modifications to the question list?
Each of those topics is relevant to Republicans and they take an active interest in it. The disagreement is how each of these topics are addressed.
Pretty much the Left would argue for an absolutist policy based on the current popular science. So they would shut down all the coal fueled power plants, outlaw gasoline vehicles, have mandatory vaccinations, and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety.
Republicans would look at each issue and weigh the cost vs. benefits and do what makes sense while ensuring everyone's safety and prosperity.
After all, what's best for the planet is if we all lived in grass huts and ate nuts and berries (strictly rationed so as to not impact the bears trying to fatten up for the winter). And since the Left would have outlawed water treatment plants due to the chemicals and land use impact, we'd all be drinking from streams.
Of course they would choose topics that are points of contention between the parties. If Republicans see that as bias, maybe they're not as confident about their positions as they pretend to be.
What is your stance on Miracles [youtube.com] as relates to the overall state of American science education?
Do you also expect the candidates to provide you with an adequate explanation of magnetism?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
They are important questions, but they aren't related to science. This bias strengthens the anti-science attitude. Science should focus on the pursuit of knowledge not on daily politics.
The science lobby at the universities desperately want one of their own in the WH because they desperately want the cash flows to continue. They also want to believe that cronyism that favors scientists is somehow better than good, old-fashioned crony government. But our latest leadership from the Department of Energy shows that scientists aren't any different. We've poured billions into fancy, university-blessed clean energy projects like Solyndra and what happened? They all went out of business.
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
As for vaccinations: yes, they should be mandatory. No religious whackjob exceptions or crystal-clutching hippie exceptions. Go read about the polio epidemic and you'll understand why. Possibly there can be one exception: a parent puts up a bond for the cost of getting their kid tested for the presence of polio/measles/whatever every couple of months, and if the kid tests positive at any time then parent goes to jail for assault against both the kid and whoever the kid may have infected.
Again, nobody on the Left wants to outlaw water treatment plants, either, given that they're rather fond of building the things in the first place.
1. Innovation and the Economy. We need the private sector focused on ways for technology to help people, not kill them. The Internet revolution was born in the 1990's, when Clinton accelerated the "peace dividend" that Bush started, and technology companies and individuals who had previously worked in the defense industry found productive work to do. We need to do that again. We need to stop overseas interventionism, slash warfare spending, and let our technologists start the technology revolution, which could be robotics, and which the Asian countries have some leads over the U.S. already.
2. Climate Change. The gasoline tax is way too low. Automobiles carry a lot of unpaid negative externalities, and affect those -- 25%-33% -- who do not drive the most. This is the low-hanging fruit that also addresses concerns about the possible effects of greenhouse gases. We also need to encourage thorium reactors, which are safe and incapable of runaway reactions, to replace coal, which is poisoning our tuna sushi.
3. Research and the Future. Outside of defense research, this is out of the purview of the federal government.
4. Pandemics and Biosecurity. The U.S. needs to increase its civil defense and encourage individuals to be prepared. There was a smattering of this in the days after 9-11, "shelter in place" that has been forgotten in favor of ever more intrusive TSA strip searches. The U.S. should model its civil defense after Switzerland.
5. Education. Education is not in the purview of the federal government. The Department of Education should be eliminated -- this was in the GOP platform from 1980-1996 but dropped in 2000 when the Bush team rewrote the platform.
6. Energy. Direct the DOE to favor thorium reactors.
7. Food. Require GMO, anti-biotic, etc. labeling for food that crosses state lines.
8. Fresh Water. In recent years, the federal government has been conducting land grabs under the premise of fresh water but these actions have no effect on the water supply. This needs to be reversed. The term "fresh water" is misleading. All water is fresh, given enough energy. See thorium reactors. We also need to preserve our millenia-old aquifers, which are resources shared across state lines, by taxing their use.
9. The Internet. The government should play as little role as possible in the Internet. To bolster civil defense, spectrum should be allocated to enable WiFi mesh networks that can take over if large parts of the Internet go down or are taken over by rogue forces.
10. Ocean Health. Ocean health is a serious problem due to the lack of anyone or any entity having property ownership of the oceans (beyond the 200 mile boundary). The world's oceans should be auctioned off.
11. Science in Public Policy. The term "public policy" is disturbing from a Constitutional perspective, because there is very little in the purview of the federal government. But regarding the broader question of public involvement in government and the ability of the public to monitor the basis of government decisions, the greater threat is from rent-seeking than from misapplied or misunderstood science. The Library of Congress Thomas website has been a boon to those seeking to monitor the actions of government. The information from a website like opensecrets.org needs to be merged into Thomas so that the public can immediately and easily correlate rent seeking to proposed bills. The public can then be informed when they go to the polls. To close the loop, voting needs to be reformed by switching to paper ballots.
12. Space. Space is important to the federal government from a defense perspective because it is the ultimate "high ground". This aspect needs to be transferred from NASA to the Air Force. The civilian and military goals of NASA are at odds with each other, and this led in part to the deaths of two shuttle crews. The private sector can taken -- and has alread
I don't think either of these guys know much about science. It would only be sad.
I agree with you that there is no obvious agenda (as an outsider), but there is something missing from the questions. They ask about some specific problems that may be solved by science, but there is not much about basic research. As in maths, physics, chemistry and biology, for the sake of expanding the horizon of human understanding, with no specific goal in mind, but with the possibility for amazing new technology to come out. (The closes they come is perhaps "Space")
Neither of the candidates know anything about the science they would be debating. Rather, once a president is elected, his or her cabinet will deal with all of the details. There should be a greater democratic process in selecting cabinet members and perhaps we could hear their positions on science policy before they are appointed.
How many realize there are more than two candidates? And I don't buy into the argument that only the top two matter. Just check out the 1912 election.
A Call For Science Policy Debate Between Presidential Candidates... since you only mention two of them..
I guess we don't want fill peoples' heads with the idea they can vote for somebody else besides these two. It would only confuse them
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
... is not a 'science' issue. It is a political issue, and, since most of the assertions are fraudulent, possibly a criminal issue. But there is no science in it...
Honestly Republicans just sound lazy.
Q1: Question?
Rep: Meh. Let the Markets figure it out.
Its like they can't be bothered to come up with anything, just let the "market" fix everything for everyone.
Actually Republicans might latch onto this debate, because the biggest issue is now firmly in their favor. We are on track to hit our Kyoto protocol goal of reducing CO2 to 1990 levels, having hit 1992 levels this year. Environmentally sustainable energy is now a huge win for Republicans as it wasn't Priuses, EPA regulations, or cap and trade, but petroleum engineers and fracking that got us there. The government has been actively trying to stop fracking, regardless of the settled science that it is safe.
How much fun would Romney have pointing out all of Obama's failed green policies to stop climate change while then pointing to the dreaded fracking as the solution, which is not only the leading source of non-government jobs in the US, but what has rendered the climate change debate moot.
I expect a more open-minded reply than "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist, Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed"
I was with them until the "graded" part. Upon what criteria would they be graded? There's more to a policy than statistics, or experimentally verifiable facts. A policy's impact on human rights and individual liberty need to be taken into account.
Climate change is a stupid question to bring up, regardless on where you fall on the issue. America has already lowered carbon emissions a great deal, if you're that worried about it talk to the rest of the world.
"environmentally sustainable energy" is equal silly, since the answer is simply "nuclear power" and letting the market bring forth efficient solar options at its own pace (wind is not now, nor ever has been a good alternative energy source).
As to "safety of food and water supplies, vaccination" - what are they really going to say? "No I don't think food should be safe" or "no vaccines"? Only fringe groups think that way. Hell, if anything Republicans would be more prone to allowing food irradiation, so who is on the nutty side of THAT debate?
So why, when we have an opportunity to bring up science issues that matters are we wasting time with points that yes, are nothing more than Democrat talking points without real impact?
If they aren't going to ask real questions they should just be ignored until they do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The people who actually need to be scrutinized are the cabinet members. Since the candidate probably know less about science than I do, a debate between them would just be sad and ideological. Instead, there should be some public debate regarding potential cabinet members and at least some democratic accountability for them.
Q1: Question?
Rep: Meh. Let the Markets figure it out.
It's more like - eh - why can't markets provide that solution?
After all, it's why America was founded, so that people would have to freedom to address problems as they arose through private industry. Government is NOT supposed to be doing a lot of work, because that is the job of the people.
You seem to think of it as "lazy". Yet it's like the man who has 100 miles to travel - they are just sitting back in a car, pressing a gas pedal and letting a powerful engine carry them where the wish to go.
You would have them walk, and very likely never reach the destination.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
when nobody I want to elect will get a chance to participate?
I was with them until the "graded" part. Upon what criteria would they be graded? There's more to a policy than statistics, or experimentally verifiable facts. A policy's impact on human rights and individual liberty need to be taken into account.
The attack by conservatives on science and reason
Bullshit. There are some crazy Republicans - but also equally crazy Democrats, against food irradiation, or nuclear power.
There's nothing conservative about an attack on science.
they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democrats have long been the party to resist real progress, and very little has changed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... basic scientific literacy of elected officials
I'm seriously trying to get my head around that one. Is this supposed to be a joke?
Bullshit. Office buildings kill far more birds than wind farms, you never hear anyone mentioning that.
Primarily because it's not true. Office buildings in fact provide habitat for raptors...
Solar can take up huge swaths of land, we have it empty. What are your plans for our deserts?
How about we let the deserts live? I think it hilarious that people criticize conservatives as being anti-environment when YOU would casually destroy miles of the most fragile eco-system that exists. There is a LOT of life in the desert, very sparsely placed so any few miles you take out in a chunk is way more likely to have something unique you are destroying than the equivalent area of dense rainforest.
The real problem with wind is, we KNOW it cannot last. All you have to do is drive to the very southern point of Hawaii, or through California to see the rusting hulks of the wind plants that came before... wind is a terrible idea and would be going nowhere without the huge subsidies paying for it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Pretty much the Left would argue for an absolutist policy based on the current popular science. So they would shut down all the coal fueled power plants, outlaw gasoline vehicles..."
That's nonsense, because it's terribly impractical. But investment in *new* coal-fueled power plants should be curbed (and certainly not subsidized with tax dollars), *inefficient* gasoline passenger vehicles should be heavily taxed and the revenues used to subsidize efficient ones, and so on. I don't know anybody who would suggest current science justifies an outright ban on these or other fossil fuel uses. However, it's a limited and dwindling resource with (we've recently learned) an additional environmental cost (higher atmospheric CO2) on top of the ones we already knew about. It also has security implications for any country that has to import large quantities. People should be encouraged to find and adopt alternatives.
"have mandatory vaccinations"
I don't believe in mandatory vaccinations. People should be able to choose what they do to their own body. However, I do believe that anyone who doesn't decide to perform voluntary vaccinations against common diseases (e.g., measles) should be required to clearly indicate their potentially infectious state, especially for anyone working in childcare or health-related industries where exposure and transmission is likely. I'm thinking colored armbands :-) Okay, maybe that's a little too marginalizing. But there should be a "not vaccinated" flag on their passport, photo-ID, etc. Especially important if someone is traveling. And in healthcare or for people dealing with plenty of international travelers (e.g., airport workers), yeah, armbands.
Wait, that kind of disclosure of personal medical details is draconian and unfair? I don't think so. It's people's right and choice whether or not they want to get vaccinated. But society has to deal with the problem if a significant fraction of people decide not to (i.e. herd immunity), and outright quarantine of the non-vaccinated is obviously too harsh. So, I'd be satisfied with only identification. This is one of those common situations where you have to balance the rights of the individual against the effect on broader society. I would *not* impose vaccination on people, but I do demand that they inform everyone else about their (stupid) personal choice because it could save people's lives.
"... and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety."
Yeah, yeah. Protect our precious bodily fluids and all that. Health and safety inspections and good standards for food and drinking water production and sale? Horrors.
What you're describing is a bunch of unfounded and irrational fears. About the only one that is for real is mandatory vaccinations. A fair number of people do advocate that. But that's mostly because not getting vaccinated is so stupid and the rationale for not doing so is founded on such bad pseudoscience. In reality, doctors can't force patients to get vaccinated, they can only advocate and let the patient decide.
I believe very strongly in personal choice, including letting people choose to be stupid. But I do expect them to take responsibility for their (stupid) choices, be responsible for the messes they create, and respect other people's right to be informed and stay the hell away from them. I also expect the people making those (stupid) choices to accept that if the rest of society thinks it's a stupid choice, it's a choice that is not going to be encouraged in the least. If the people making those (stupid) choices get all uppity about individual rights, that's fine. They should feel secure in the fact that the same rights that protect their choice are what allow me to call them an idiot. I'd never want to compromise that.
If you want the right to not have your feelings hurt and not be subject to ridicule for making a (stupid) choice, too bad. There is no such right.
Both candidates are pig-ignorant when it comes to scientific matters and so are their VPs.
It would, of course, have significant comedy value and so might be worthwhile, particularly if we bring up peak oil, global warming, nuclear waste disposal, NASA, and the long term implications of makerbots and artificial intelligence. Their deer-in-the-headlights expressions and stupid comments could provide months of comedy material.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Innovation and the Economy: Democrats, More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
private markets havent innovated anything in a damn long time. Apple has sued the holy bejeezus out of every competetor to bring a new product to market, Harley Davidson lobbied for huge tarrifs in the 80's to prevent technologically superior motorcycles from ever landing in the hands of consumers. Lobbyists for major automotive manufacturers make sure chinese manufacturers like Cherry and French manufactureres like Pugot never see american markets while at the same time guaranteeing a smooth bailout if their ideology of SUV's during $5 a gallon gas summers doesnt turn out to be a profit machine.
point 2? a boldface lie. the republican posture on climate change is that its either not happening, not man made, or not reliably measured. In short, republicans arent doing shit to take care of this problem but ignoring it.
point 3 just regurgutates point 1 and is also patently false. Corporations dont invest in the future unless theyre getting a profit from it. Cleaner air and water are innovations to make life better for our children, but arent researched. Private corporations once again rely on patents and copyright to avoid innovation at most any cost because its expensive and unpredictable.
point 4. what the hell is biosecurity? Pandemics i understand however the most immediate vector for that appears to be intensive factory farming and genetic modification lately. Federally funded scientists are private scientists in most cases, the rosters of the FDA have quite a few monsanto and cargill employees.
point 5. Here in California vouchers have failed miserably. Theyre tucked into the coffers of a few millionaires and the students are shown the tests they take ahead of time to bolster their score, the "numbers", and in turn generate more funding from the federal governement and increased fees from parents. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/17/local/la-me-crescendo-20120818
point 6. again, there are no invisible hands here. We either invest in science and technology to create and enhance alternative energy systems or we use up our remaining fossil fuels in the hopes some sort of blind god in a business suit will usher in our technological future. invisible hands make for a shit argument.
point 7. better safe than sorry is an excellent policy. Heavy regulation may mean Dow Corning executives will have to delay the next yacht, but it also means shit like prion induced BSE, salmonella and fecal coliform stay out of the food supply. remember "biosecurity"? you just made an argument to kill everyone after making an argument that a private drug scientist would help us after 15 minutes.
point 8. clean the water because the invisible hand has once again failed miserably. there is no market in cleaning up the superfund sites from big businesses. Telling people to buy water purification systems again uses the invisible hand to basically tell people the equality of all men as cited under the declaration of independence is just a fucking lie. the rich will drink pure water
Good people go to bed earlier.
Solyndra didn't go out of business because of any flaws in their technology or even corruption.
They were outsubsidized by the Chinese. I'd call that requiring leadership from the Department of Commerce, not Energy.
I would love that debate (yes, even more than the science one) but just like answering science policy questions, it raises the same issue: what's in it for them? Why would a candidate share their opinions on these matters?
We only punish them for speaking their minds. And we never EVER punish them for being silent. Even Romney is likely to get somewhere around 50% of the vote, give or take 5%.
Our candidates aren't the problem; we are. Because 99% of us vote for whatever they (the two biggest parties) put forth. That won't change until we change.
So instead of asking candidates their opinions about what policies should be, I'd like to ask voters: what would it take, to make you give a fuck? Under what conditions might you be willing to vote your heart, for the candidate you'd most like to win, even if you were pretty sure you would lose (i.e. your vote would be "wasted")?
Are there really no conditions under which that might happen, or is there some hope that some day America might start voting for things it wants, so that policy debates start to matter, and candidates have incentive to share their opinions?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yes, Republicans would look at each issue, weigh the cost vs. benefits, and do what makes sense. They're never absolutists, and never come up with oppressive crap at all.
Oh wait, have you read my local paper? It's got some editorials that show me another story about the right-wing. They're quite conservative, and regularly demand that Christian churches be given more rights, argue for outlawing abortions, insist that corporations do what's right, and demonstrate a slavish devotion to their libertarian anarchist policies. In fact, they've even argued against the idea of compromise.
All while insisting, just like you, that it's they who give consideration to everything, while it's just the Left who thinks one way.
Sorry, but you are deluded if you think the right is the reasonable ones.
As much as I would love to see such a debate, it simply not going to happen. In order to participate in a debate, or any other campaign function, the candidate has to see a significant upside that outweighs the potential pitfalls. In other words, the campaign needs to have a sense that they can win votes and avoid losing votes. Let us examine that calculus for the two leading contenders:
Obama:
Pros - Gets to look like an informed policy maker. Gets to highlight his record (real or perceived) as president: green energy, funding for innovation, R&D corporate tax credits, higher mileage standards, network neutrality, access to education. Gets to try to make Romney look like an ignorant fool touting flat-earth nonsense that panders to an ignorant base.
Cons - The people who are going to vote for him anyway already know this. The people who are undecided probably won't be swayed by his performance. His record thus far hasn't really satisfied environmentalists. Could come off as an egg-headed wonk rather than a substantive leader. Solyndra! Killing jobs in coal country! Higher energy costs! Loss of manufacturing!
Romney:
Pros - Gets to pound Obama on his record (real or perceived). Gets to pound Obama about job-killing regulations from the EPA, FCC, FDA, etc. Drill, baby, drill! Innovators are harmed, not helped, by government.
Cons - Doesn't have a coherent platform of his own to promote, other than the magic mystery of the markets and ending (unspecified) regulations. Will either have to 1) pander unscientific nonsense that accords with his base, 2) speak intelligently on science and technology and alienate his base, or 3) speak in platitudes (innovation good! climate change? I dunno. Government bad!) that won't win over anyone. The people who are going to vote for him anyway won't be any more committed to him any route he chooses. He might end up losing votes. He isn't likely to get many undecideds from his performance.
In short, there really aren't a whole lot of votes to be won from such a debate. There are votes to be lost. Nobody wants to appear uninformed on camera. Despite its indisputable importance, science and technology policy just doesn't deliver votes.
I wasn't aware that the reason America was founded was to solve problems using private industry.
In fact I am pretty sure it wasn't.
For your education should you decide to look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Basically says it was all about taxes, particulary without representation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Has a bunch of stuff in there, but basically calls the king of england a big dickhole. Demands rights.
Note: All these things are in referance to a forign power interfearing with their lives, not a domestic goverenment, which they are in fact they are actually demanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Mostly this addresses the grievences of the above. Mostly addressing justice, the fact they want their own goverement, to run their own affairs, not the king of england, has some stuff about having a standing army, own religion, etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Its all very long and complicated, but it basically outlines the various pieces of governemnt, the justice system, executive, some rights, blah blah blah...
Nowhere in any of those things above do I see anything remotly about rights given to private industry to solve problems for the public. In fact, it is very much the oppsite of that, in that they are DEMANDING their own government to do these things themselves, not the british king.
So I don't know if you have some sort of historical insight that I fail to see, but it is far more likely you just ascribe to some ideological dogma, and you see everything through that lens. Somehow I can see you saying all of the above is on wiki, so the dems must be messing with it. Please enlighten me if you think there are some more "formative" examples in US history that say that the USA was formed so that private companies using markets could solve social problems.
Anyway I don't even care, I'm impartial, not even from the US. However this sort of lazy ideological thinking isn't restricted to the US, but many sure love it for some reason. Even after all the recent troubles, greenspan was wrong, a hack. The ideal that markets solve everything is simplistic. Even if it were true, there is enough interfereance (by those within the markets to change them to their advantage) to make it not. Its like playing a board game, where some players can change the rules, and then act all surprised at the end when they own everything.
Don't even, "well in an ideal world" either, as we plainly don't live in one, and if that were the case Communism would actually work out well, which it plainly did not.
You clearly can't think your current health care model works for example? How are the insurance companies and markets working there for you?
Don't get me wrong markets can be powerful modivators, however they do not solve all problems, and they need to be regulated (you know by rules) to prevent companies (players) from "cheating". Otherwise it goes out of wack and you get ruin.
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda.
Questions 1 to 3 on the "Science Debate" site basically saying "We're scientist, how much money will you use to buy our votes?" Those questions will definitely benefit the Democrats.
Most of the rest of the questions look pretty unbiased. The Democrats will have a slight advantage because it is always easier to say "We're going to spend more money this year" than it is to say "we'd like to spend more money but current spending rates are bankrupting our children and we have to cut back, and besides history shows that free enterprise produce most of the positive results we're looking for."
The Democrat position is easy - they say they'll stick their hands in and fix the problem. The Republican argument is more sophisticated and harder to communicate in a sound bite. The Republican position is based on boring subjects like math and history while the Democratic position is based on feel-good things like playing Santa Claus.
But that's not a problem specific to the science debate - it is just a general difference between the parties.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Why not ask more basic questions dealing with things like evolution or even how conception works whether you are "legitimately" raped or not.
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda. However, this says more about the Republican party's interest in science than it does about ScienceDebate.org's political bias.
No, your statement says more about your bias against Republicans than it says about the actual usage of science by members of the two political parties. Republicans try to let the facts speak for themselves, but Democrats often out-yell the facts.
Surprise surprise. A Republican-supporting post, that is every bit as rational and fair-minded as the Democrat-supporting post it responded to, gets modded "troll" while the post it responded to was moded "+3 insightful". The modding bias on slashdot is getting out of hand. I don't mind people up-modding because they agree with something, but down-modding based on disagreement is just a way of trying to hide arguments you're afraid others might find convincing.
I find I have to browse with a low mod setting these days in order to see both sides of a debate. If I wanted an echo chamber I could go to one of the many sites that openly support Democrats. I come to slashdot because I would rather read rational informed debate.
Do you think AC's post isn't a good argument? Plenty of people felt the need to respond to it with rational discussion. If the AC were a troll most people would ignore it or respond with anger. I myself wouldn't mod the AC insightful or informative, but he wasn't trolling anymore than post he responded to was.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
In fact, they've even argued against the idea of compromise.
For economic conservatives, we have good reason to resist further "compromise". We want to cut spending, Democrats want to increase spending. A fair compromise would mean keeping current spending levels (adjusting for inflation). Instead every budget compromise has been to increase spending, but just not as much as the Democrats wanted.
Or worse, we get a situation where Republicans say they want to cut taxes and decrease spending while Democrats say they want to raise taxes and increase spending. So the parties compromise by cutting taxes and increasing spending!
The other reason many conservatives distrust "compromise" is that the promises aren't kept. One of the more famous was the 1980s plan to amnesty illegal aliens while increasing enforcement to make sure the problem didn't happen again. We go the amnesty but not the enforcement. Another example from the 1980s was the budget compromises where taxes went up in exchange for future spending cuts - but the cuts never arrived.
Conservatives are tired of being told that a kick in the head is a compromise because it was only one foot instead of two.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda. However, this says more about the Republican party's interest in science than it does about ScienceDebate.org's political bias.
Of course they would choose topics that are points of contention between the parties. If Republicans see that as bias, maybe they're not as confident about their positions as they pretend to be.
So someone - not a Republican but some random person - speculates on how Republicans will respond, and you take this as evidence for Republicans not being confident?? So you're not concerned about how Republicans actually respond? Some guy told you that how he imagines Republicans will react and you treat it as though his imagination is fact?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Why would one think their answers on scientific issues be any different than all the other campaign promise lies?
I want to know, in a nutshell, will your administration be more likely to make decisions, and form policies, based on scientific realities, or on industry funded pseudoscience? Press for this debate loudly. All too often, scientists in general, are too polite, too subdued, whereas brash know-it-all MBAs & Lawyers can't restrain themselves & their abilities to whip up a crowd for obfuscated, short-sighted, often selfish (greedy) counterproductive reasons. It is pathetic, the progress science-deniers/ detractors have made in the public consciousness in areas that truly matter: habitat destruction, green house gases, marine pollution, stratospheric ozone depletion, aka collectively screwing around with the global nitrogen cycle.
Actually Republicans might latch onto this debate, because the biggest issue is now firmly in their favor. We are on track to hit our Kyoto protocol goal of reducing CO2 to 1990 levels, having hit 1992 levels this year. Environmentally sustainable energy is now a huge win for Republicans as it wasn't Priuses, EPA regulations, or cap and trade, but petroleum engineers and fracking that got us there. The government has been actively trying to stop fracking, regardless of the settled science that it is safe.
How much fun would Romney have pointing out all of Obama's failed green policies to stop climate change while then pointing to the dreaded fracking as the solution, which is not only the leading source of non-government jobs in the US, but what has rendered the climate change debate moot.
A post that deserves +5 Informative is modded as a troll. I wonder why. Oh yeah, it supports Republicans.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I expect a more open-minded reply than "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist, Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed"
He wanted to know their stance on miracles, not magnets.
In Soviet America, science does not instruct policy - policy instructs science
Each of those topics is relevant to Republicans and they take an active interest in it. The disagreement is how each of these topics are addressed.
Pretty much the Left would argue for an absolutist policy based on the current popular science. So they would shut down all the coal fueled power plants, outlaw gasoline vehicles, have mandatory vaccinations, and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety.
Republicans would look at each issue and weigh the cost vs. benefits and do what makes sense while ensuring everyone's safety and prosperity.
After all, what's best for the planet is if we all lived in grass huts and ate nuts and berries (strictly rationed so as to not impact the bears trying to fatten up for the winter). And since the Left would have outlawed water treatment plants due to the chemicals and land use impact, we'd all be drinking from streams.
Surprise surprise. A Republican-supporting post, that is every bit as rational and fair-minded as the Democrat-supporting post it responded to, gets modded "troll" while the post it responded to was moded "+3 insightful". The modding bias on slashdot is getting out of hand. I don't mind people up-modding because they agree with something, but down-modding based on disagreement is just a way of trying to hide arguments you're afraid others might find convincing.
I find I have to browse with a low mod setting these days in order to see both sides of a debate. If I wanted an echo chamber I could go to one of the many sites that openly support Democrats. I come to slashdot because I would rather read rational informed debate.
Do you think AC's post isn't a good argument? Plenty of people felt the need to respond to it with rational discussion. If the AC were a troll most people would ignore it or respond with anger. I myself wouldn't mod the AC insightful or informative, but he wasn't trolling anymore than post he responded to was.
So my post has been modded "troll" also. "Off-topic" would be a reasonable mod, but "troll"?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I think Science Debate is the greatest thing to happen to those of interested in science and politics. When they got Obama and McCain to answer science questions in the 2008 election, I immediately cancelled my membership to the Union of Concerned Scientists and started donating to this grassroots organization.
I have one issue that I vote on, and that's science. It's the only issue I understand well enough to evaluate the candidates on. If they know their science or have advisors that understand science, then I will trust them with most everything else. I summarized Obama's 2008 responses here, McCain's here, and my calls for who won on each issue. Obama's responses won on most issues, but McCain did not do poorly. Since Obama has taken office, he has impressed me with his support of science with Data.gov, Science.gov, a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, proposed major increases in science funding, and put the Office of Science and Technology Policy back in the Whitehouse.
These might seem like small accomplishments, but compared to the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration they were a breath of fresh air. Unless Romney answers the science debate questions this election cycle, I won't even consider him.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
"... and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety."
Yeah, yeah. Protect our precious bodily fluids and all that. Health and safety inspections and good standards for food and drinking water production and sale? Horrors.
Haha that reminds me of recently hearing that the US only recently established standards on mercury pollution. The horrors are what you guys eat and drink, not the regulations. Yes I know you were being sarcastic, I am agreeing.
I think you're letting your personal bias show here. For example, vaccinations, it was a Republican governor who forced teenagers to get the HPV vaccine, and Jane Fonda (a democrat) is a leading advocate of the anti-vaccination crowd. Of course, there are crazy anti-vaccination republicans too, and sane democrats. Similarly with water supplies, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it's a regional issue. California's central valley has a very different view on water than Los Angeles. Environmentally sustainable energy is part of the Democrats' agenda, but they aren't necessarily winning that point, especially on topics like ethanol, it's easy for Republicans to spin (ie. Democrats spent years pushing ethanol and now it's threatening to use all the corn that people would otherwise eat).
Personally I'd like to see them ask real science questions. We already know the answers to all the questions in the list will be vague. Solve a differential equation, or calculate the speed of a falling object right on the board, explain how photosynthesis works.
That sort of debate would be much more satisfying.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Most of the rest of the questions look pretty unbiased. The Democrats will have a slight advantage because it is always easier to say "We're going to spend more money this year because history has shown that our country produces most of the positive results we're looking for when we incentivize competition" than it is to say "we'd like to spend more money but current spending rates are bankrupting our children so we have to cut revenue, cut spending even further, and pray that free enterprise is the solution to everything."
The Republican position is easy - they say they'll take their hands off and the problem will fix itself. The Democratic argument is more sophisticated and harder to communicate in a sound bite. The Democratic position is based on boring subjects like math and history while the Republican position is based on feel-good things like trickle-down economics.
But that's not a problem specific to the science debate - it is just a general difference between the parties.
That is hilarious. Someone give this guy funny mod points.
What if one believes in Crazy Reality?
If you accept that TWO human beings are involved, and not just one - then abortion is no more a private decision than murder, rape, or theft.
As opposed to suicide, masturbation, or destroying your own property.
If you accept that you are aborting a living human being, then which of those groups does abortion fit in?
ironic captcha: retrofit
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
And this right there is the problem conservatives have with the idea. Because conservatives realize that those who get the permits will be those who are politically connected to the right people, while anyone who does manage to get permits had better be careful to support all the correct people and positions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The idea is that they're not like a "permit" to have a gun or whatever, but are permits that are for sale for a certain price, and that can be bought and sold on the market without going through the government.
I don't like that idea as much as the carbon tax, though, simply because it's simpler. (Most carbon tax proposals include tax cuts elsewhere to stay revenue-neutral.)
You really believe that politicians and bureaucrats won't meddle in that market?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
He was not shut out, he was ignored because he is a blatantly bigoted, self entitled, fruitcake, who seems to attract similarly enfeebled idiots with delusions of adequacy.
But I am not the one who agreed to accept that life begins (and thus a human being exists), at any point. Or was your stipulation just a red herring?
by h4rr4r (612664) writes: on Wednesday August 22, @12:03PM (#41082151) "For me I can say I care so little about it that I am fine accepting whatever time table you like. Even if we say when Mommy and Daddy got horny, that sounds fine to me. This does not change anything, medical procedures are the patients decision not mine, not yours."
Your circular reasoning/slippery slope argument is a fallacy, but even if correct would apply to your position, not mine.
Abortion is a very messy moral issue, and your attempt to short-circuit the discussion doesn't remove this reality. When "life begins", that is when a separate human life exists is in fact a very salient point. Real-world abortion laws/decisions take this into account (third-trimester, etc.). So no, the assertion that it is "internal to one human being" is not an end to the discussion of moral issues or societies involvement.
that's probably why you and other con's like it so much.
I never said it was the optimum solution, just that it's one that's been proposed, and that it's milder than the "ban all fossil fuels" strawman that was trotted out.
Politicians meddle in everything. We ought to work on ways to make them cut it out. Nonetheless, until we stamp out this sort of corruption, we still have to get on with life.
fossil fuels are great in that you get to give even more money to big corporations for the privilege of having a polluted planet that everyone else has to clean up. and judging by your prior posts, I'm sure you consider all of the money killing them funny lookin furiners that are sitting on your oil to just be a nice fringe benefit.
for his contempt of science and reality. You can't really take anything he says seriously.
Hear hear!
True story. Take it or leave it.
I expect they'll meddle in it about as much as they meddle in the current sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide markets. You are aware that the U.S. already operates at least 2 such markets already, right?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Uh yeah, when I saw the header I was assuming we'd be talking about pure science research, NASA, NIH, materials research, the Super Conducting Supercollider, Fusion, etc.
The list shows more about Republican views on science than the political bias of ScienceDebate? It does? Um there's a lot more about science than those topics, so why those topics?
please don't post stories that attempt to legitimize these two. the american public gave away the ability to affect real change on any real issues (using the office of president anyway) when they allowed two frauds to be chosen as "candidates" for them. All subsequent petitions to these puppets is just propaganda that too many impressionable minds will believe. way to forfeit the top executive office for another 4 years!
But still doesn't explain why it was modded as "troll".
And are you still using "con" as a pejorative? I might as well start calling people hippies...
I suppose claiming that the age of the Earth is 6,000 years covers both?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Again, nobody on the Left wants to outlaw water treatment plants, either, given that they're rather fond of building the things in the first place.
Simpler solution to the problem of regulating waste: require municipalities to discharge their waste upstream from where they take in their drinking water. The community can then determine how much (or even whether) do treat the waste prior to discharge. The Republicans should be all for this idea as it minimizes big government regulations/interference and leaves maximum control to the locals!
Do you think AC's post isn't a good argument?
No, not really. It was flamebait through and through.
Though, personally, if I had mod points, I'd have modded it funny because of gems like "republicans would look at each issue and weigh the cost vs. benefits and do what makes sense while ensuring everyone's safety and prosperity".
That would mess with some people's water systems, though. In Tucson they treat water and then "discharge" it into artificial ponds constructed to have relatively porous bottoms, letting it seep back down into the aquifer: in a place where water is scarce, we might as well store it in the ground.
The other reason many conservatives distrust "compromise" is that the promises aren't kept. One of the more famous was the 1980s plan to amnesty illegal aliens while increasing enforcement to make sure the problem didn't happen again. We go the amnesty but not the enforcement. Another example from the 1980s was the budget compromises where taxes went up in exchange for future spending cuts - but the cuts never arrived.
I'm assuming this is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986? It was passed with Democrat House majority but Republican Senate majority. Can I also assume that when the Democrats took control of both right after, that funds for this enforcement were struck from the next budget?
(Wouldn't be the first or last time... IIRC NASA was mandated to fly one more shuttle mission before they were retired, but wasn't given the budget line item to do so).
Conservatives are tired of being told that a kick in the head is a compromise because it was only one foot instead of two.
I'll give you that--conservative politicians are often more up front and tell you straight up they'll kick you in the head with both feet.
So perhaps you should stop voting for Republicans then, if they keep on failing to deliver on things you care about?
Enforcement costs money. If you're looking for a place to cut costs, not paying police to harass people would be a pretty obvious place to start.
See, this is one of the main problems conservatives face: there's a very strong perception that you're always willing to spend money as long as it's spent to harm someone. It's only when we're talking about helping people that economic conservatives start complaining. And you've done nothing to dispell that perception here by demanding more "enforcement" in one sentence and spending cuts in the very next. So, it's kinda hard to not see you as cartoon supervillains.
You haven't been kicked in the head, you've just failed to dictate the policies of the entire nation. Not getting your way is in no way comparable to having brutal physical violence done to you.
Grow up.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
So perhaps you should stop voting for Republicans then, if they keep on failing to deliver on things you care about?
And vote for the democrats that are fighting to make it worse. If you haven't noticed there is clear and distinct grass-root movement going on within the republican party fighting for change within their own party. What did your ring-leadered occupy movement accomplish except cause more public expenses that we can't afford? See, this is one of the main problems liberals face: there's a very strong perception that you're always willing to spend money on whatever will get you votes without regard to how it is spent because you can simply turn around and say, "but we were only trying to help" and anybody who opposes your philosophy is immediately accused of only wishing harm. Conservatives recognize that roads of shit are paved with your golden intentions.
Not getting your way is in no way comparable to having brutal physical violence done to you.
Not being allowed to live as free men is much worse than having brutal physical violence done to you, regardless of how benevolent you tell us that your tyrants are currently behaving.
you've just failed to dictate the policies of the entire nation.
Failing to dictate the policies of the entire nation is what is considered success for conservatives. Having liberal policies dictated to the entire nation is loss of freedom for the entire nation.
Grow up.
Classy. Be free, be independent, and take personal responsibility for your own choices.
It's beyond me why we think we have a real choice in elections. a) we can't say they're all incompetent and get new candidates to choose from. By design we are forced to vote for those few individuals no matter who wins. b) Votes results can be faked.
I wish we had a choice really.
So perhaps you should stop voting for Republicans then, if they keep on failing to deliver on things you care about?
You to bring up an tricky dilemma for conservatives. Do we keep voting for the party that promises to make the country better but in fact makes it worse? Or should we start voting for the party that promises to make the country worse and consistently delivers?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Actually, it's because right-leaning people are so used to all these topics being twisted by left-leaning media types into pro-democrat propaganda
Take "clean water" for example... during the Clinton years, a certain level of arsenic in the water was OK (it is a naturally occurring substance, after all, and if you have sensitive enough detection gear you can see it nearly everywhere) but as he was leaving office he put in a new set of standards he was never willing to enforce on his own watch but which were a fiscal bomb left to blow-up on Bush. When Bush got in, he suspended the changes (meaning the arsenic levels would be unchanged) and then he was blasted for being in favor of "arsenic in our drinking water" Indeed, the Democrats have continued to throw that accusation around for years now (the charge that "Republicans are for dirty air and dirty water")
This happens over and over again to the point where most conservatives/Republicans now simply assume it's all fraudulent... and then they get labelled as "anti-science"... (the "anti-science" accusation started as a Democrat talking point before the 2004 election). I care a great deal about science and I see it being damaged by all the manipulations. Before science was being used as a political weapon, most Americans had great faith in scientists; in the 1950's many movies had heroes who were scientists... parents bought their kids science kits (chemistry sets, etc) for birthdays and Christmas etc. and we all believed that American scientists could solve nearly any problem. It was actually the left that sponsored a great deal of the initial wave of anti-science in the US with the anti-nuke (both for power and weapons and weapon-testing) activities of the sixties and seventies and it was a young Democrat named Walter Mondale who tried to kill NASA to use the money "here on Earth" for anti-poverty programs (and tried to use the Apollo 1 fire to fuel his efforts)
It's all become a load of manure and anybody who wraps his political agenda in the cloak of "science" is doing greater harm to SCIENCE than any supposedly anti-science person has done. At this point, James Hanson for example, has made a significant number of people disregard anything that comes out of GSFC... I simply do not know anybody who takes that facility seriously anymore.
Seems to me you're the one living in a field, what with all the straw men around you.
Most companies will avoid harsh pollution if it will affect their bottom line.
Truth is, most public companies can't see past their next quarterly report. If a liability case takes longer than that, it has near zero effect on corporate decision making. Remind me: how often are cases are handled inside of three months?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
I'd like to hear their opinions on whether or not Kentucky should be allowed to remove evolution from their biology exams. I can see it as a two edged sword in some states, and I'd like to see how they answer it. :-)
Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)