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.
He would be the only one but the press and parties have shut him out.
No good deed goes unpunished.
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.
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].
Because they might expose the Democrats and Republicans for what they are: stupid, and corrupt. It is a two horse race, and the horses parties are very good at keeping it that way.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
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.
Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President, ever.
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.
Do people actually believe this garbage or are these just bad jokes?
The majority of scientists I know lean right. Only the bad scientists who will say anything for more 'free' government funding lean left.
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.
Evolution is just a troll issue for anti-religious bigots.
What does that have to do with the office of the Presidency?
It is an easy sanity check.
It really is that simple. It is not a troll, anymore than pointing out the earth is round.
If we can't sling mud at people we disagree and call them religous, ignorant nutters who hate women and minorities or communist hippie nutters who want to destroy the America we have worked so hard for... Afterall, bucketizing people is what we do best. If one person who claims membership of a group does something bad, the entire group must be at fault.
Look no further than Penn State for a good example of how we lovingly lash out in defence of America and the Children and the Environment because the media told us to and it made good TV.
We clearly know different scientists. The only ones I know that lean right are those working for the Discovery Institute, Big Oil/Big Pharma, or Koch Brothers. The ones living off publishing research in peer reviewed journals in the University systems or in labs tend to lean left.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
The problem with most of the third party candidates is that they are too fringe, they are even further from moderation. I am actually a registered member of the Modern Whig Party (A moderate group).
But if you saw the New York Governors race a couple years ago. They had a big debate with all the candidates. The Green Party and the Rent is too damn high party made the Democrats look like the moderates in the debate. Then republican was a strong Tea Party Candidate, and the had a Libertarian party too.
If they agreed on a debate the Republican vs. Democrat, Cuomo would actually have a harder time, Because he could be placed as far left. But next to "Rent is too damn High" party. He looked like the only rational person in the room.
(I use to carpool and there was a house with a "Vote R" Sign., we use to joke, I wonder what the R is. Of course he want us to vote for "Rent is too Damn High")
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The majority of scientists you know are then idiots.
The republican party has fully embraced the far right christians. These are young earth crazies that are fine with destroying the earth as they believe the apocalypse is right around the corner. They have no interest in furthering knowledge beyond "God did it".
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.
Sanity check / loyalty oath / code words for bigotry
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.
Penn State? They deserve whatever they get.
The football program and the university higherups covered up and protected a child molester, could it have been much worse?
You think even covering up child rape is something that should just be ignored?
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.
Nope, just reality.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat go for it. Just don't expect not to be mocked. Same thing for thinking the universe is 6000 years old.
Not all issues have two sides. Like with the shape of the earth there just can be no argument. Just reality and crazies.
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.
A loyalty oath is something imposed from above; a sanity check is something imposed by the electorate. Nobody is proposing barring people who give whackjob answers from running for president; we're just hoping that voters won't vote for them. This is how elections are supposed to work.
I don't think either of these guys know much about science. It would only be sad.
I suspect it's partly regional, your flamebait comment aside. Having said that though, all the engineers and scientists I know either are independant or reluctant republican leaning even those from the New England area. But I work for a huge multinational company and any American engineer leans central-right. Perhaps it's corporate makeup, perhaps not.
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")
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!”
I did not suggest people Mock them, I stated they should expect to be mocked.
No one is suggesting they are not people, only not fit to be elected.
People who cling to myths in the face of evidence are exhibiting magical thinking.
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.
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"
And my anecdote cancels out yours.
I actually know 0 scientists and engineers whose political beliefs can be so easily labeled.
I think that is the central problem with american politics. We have only two possible choices and they actually only cater to a select few.
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.
These questions are about policy around science. What policy do you propose about evolution? Some regulation that we must kill genetically inferior citizens?
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.
Really?
So, when does human life begin?
AFAICT, the entire left in America refuses to believe any science on that subject whatsoever and consistently makes up fantasy arguments to ease themselves of guilt associated with murdering living human beings. In particular, the lawyers on SCOTUS making up rules to define life based upon air.
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
Yea, simply put if there were no D or R, he would still be unelectable.
So long as he goes around saying it should be up to the states to decide if blacks and women can vote, and should let them decide if GOD is the ruler of a state; then that'll mean most of the US would be opposed to him.
I am actually a registered member of
Could somebody please explain this voter registration system to a non-US citizen? What's the purpose? Who benefits from it?
In my country, I'm free to choose whoever I like in the voting booth on election day. I don't have to show any previous affiliation with any party. Nobody knows who I voted for last time, nobody knows who I'll vote for next time (including me).
You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
I'm going to go ahead and surrender to Godwin's Law here.
Giving a whole lot of political parties an equal voice is exactly what happened in 1930's Germany. There were so many parties running with candidates, the leading candidate for Chancellor only needed a small minority of the population to vote him in. The result was that an extremist radical was elected, despite only a (relatively) small number of people voted for him. The more parties you have, the less people need to agree with you in order to be voted in.
So, a two party system may not seem like the best way, but it at least weeds out all the radicals and keeps us somewhere near the middle of the political spectrum.
The entire left does not.
Most I bet do not even care about that question as it has no value to them.
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.
Again no one said that. You have a hell of a persecution complex kiddo.
Only to not elect them to government office.
So, morality on any level is beyond the scope of discussion? Granted, at least you're halfway honest in that you just don't care about human life or the consequences of encouraging disdain for life in general. But, the fact is that there is no scientific method applied to the legal definition of life in America and the magical thinking left, very specifically the ACLU, likes it that way because answering the hard questions or developing a moral thread based upon responsibility to our species somehow falls outside their meme.
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.
The majority of scientists you know are then idiots.
The republican party has fully embraced the far right christians. These are young earth crazies that are fine with destroying the earth as they believe the apocalypse is right around the corner. They have no interest in furthering knowledge beyond "God did it".
I think it is an oversimplification to simply say that scientists lean "left" or "right" as if they are monolithic policy positions. I am literally surrounded by scientists every day and it is fair to say that the vast majority are atheists or non-religious, but that is really where the left/right bias ends. Politically, science professors are just like everyone else; the older the get, the more conservative they get. The one glaring difference is that they are smarter than the average population and are painfully aware that right-wing Christian nut jobs have hi-jacked the GOP, complete with Conservative purity tests. Well-known professors who have voted republican their entire lives were taken of the short list for positions in the Bush White House because they gave money to Michael Dukakis--when he was running for governor. I know a few that still can't bring themselves to vote democrat, but who have stopped donating to the GOP because of the outright anti-science craziness espoused by some of the Tea Party Republicans in office. Two things all scientist pay attention to are the NIH/NSF budgets and Defense spending and everyone is nervous when bible-thumping crazies get on those committees.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
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.
It's two semi trucks driving down both lanes of the road not letting anyone pass. ;)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I'm talking strictly in the sense of his claims that we should let the states decide if slavery is allowed or if women are property.
Unless he staunchly denounces both of those then he's not going to be electable.
Typically, it allows you to vote in your party's primary election, which is how the party's candidates for the general election are chosen.
Some states have open primaries in which you don't have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary; however, other states require a party affiliation to do so.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Wow, I see the crazies still have access to the internet, I'm just not sure that is a good thing.
Nonsense. Europeans do just fine with their pluralistic political bodies. The idea that only a two-party system is viable is just narrow American thinking.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
You say "[c]hildren get too many vaccinations". How many is too many? And which diseases do you propose we stop vaccinating for?
Cynical Idealist
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.
Nice strawman, considering I said none of that.
Enforcing morality is not the role of government. A real conservative would know that. It is the governments role to recognize medical treatments are private and done for the patient not the whole town. You know small government all that jazz.
I care about human life a great deal, I also think encouraging a disdain for life would be bad. I cannot however support the government deciding what medical procedures people can purchase so long as they are not fraudulent.
A simple fact is abortion has reduced crime and the numbers of unwanted children. It is not the way I would want that to happen, but I live in reality and as such must accept that.
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.
Get some help. Please for your own sake.
because Ron Paul had the fiery emotional vote that could have bumped the democrat out
Hilarious.
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.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat go for it. Just don't expect not to be mocked.
Ah, but the earth is flat. Gravity simply warps space around the center of the earth's mass until the flat plane touches on the other side.
The television will not be revolutionized.
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.
Or you lie. Ill go with that.
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.
Really, you don't think a rapist, thief, or murderer should be punished by the government. I am a real conservative and I do think the government should do these things, the alternative being lynch mobs or other forms of private justice. I.e., I think the government should enforce these moral positions.
Drunkenness, lying, adultery, and abortion are morally wrong -- Does it make sense for the government to have and enforce laws related to them? Except in special circumstances, the answer to these is general limited to situations where the harm or potential harm to other is significant. I.e., no law against drunkenness, but laws against public intoxication and driving while intoxicated.
Abortion is morally wrong -- The question is whether the government should enforce that moral issue.
Yes, the earth is flat -- This is a reasonable accurate approximation of the earth that we use on a daily basis. With 10 km of earth surface, it is the best and most appropriate approximation of reality for relatively short distances along the surface of the earth. This is why I happily use glad use a 2-D map 99.97% of the time instead of a 3-D globe.
Why bother? Any positions they state before the election have no bearing on how they actually rule.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
First, from Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?
The vast majority of post-1990 vaccines can be eliminated. The problem with vaccines is that everyone praises the polio vaccine and then sees it as a hammer to solve every problem without evaluating the risks.
The Constitutional role of the federal government is limited -- mostly civil defense and possibly also natural but high-mortality pandemics that cross state lines. The federal government has no business boosting Big Pharma profits via the Department of Education.
I do not think that Rape, Theft and Murder are illegal for moral reasons, but because they impact other members of society. If they were only moral issues like adultery the government should not be involved.
Abortion itself is morally ambiguous, there may even be cases were it might be morally correct. For instance, in the case of a birth that would result in a human living only hours or days and in great pain until death. Another such moral abortion would be one that saves the life of the mother.
Abortion is a private medical procedure and I do not believe the government should be involved.
I think you should select your own care provider.
I would imagine many psychologists would be able to help you, I highly doubt they would suggest anything so drastic.
The fact that you keep imagining anyone would really does indicate that you need help. That is not the sort of society we live in.
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
You're right, you caught me. This thread buried deep in the story I decided to lie about some anecdotal evidence I have at my large company. Yes yours truly is an insightful post promoting good discussion. Though I suspect you are posting from high school (actually I hope so given the quality).
Yeah, I am pretty sure republican leadership hate Ron Paul as much as any democrat.
Insults. Typical for someone caught in a lie, deflect and attack.
Obviously you've never been to a mega church, or gospel revival.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...Giving a whole lot of political parties an equal voice is exactly what happened in 1930's Germany. There were so many parties running with candidates, the leading candidate for Chancellor only needed a small minority of the population to vote him in...
Wrong. What happened in 1930's Germany had nothing to do with number of parties they had. The population was radicalised, and a radical candidate for a radical party got the popular vote. Then they started using violence and dirty tactics to increase their base, and then they suspended the constitution. Modern coalition based multi-party parliamentary systems have far less in common with that situation than the current situation in the US does. If they had had a two party system Hitler probably would have just become head of the nationalist one of the two.
He thinks in terms of lambs and shepherds. Appearantly it's the only viable setup.
As crude as it is, the reality is that there is no scientific consensus that life is important. It's an assumption. It's an assumption to say that we are more or less responsible in our actions either way. It's an assumption to even suggest that some sort of "disdain for life in general" even enters into the picture. The nature of things is such that some of us make it, some of us don't. That is our burden either way you wanna twist your sense of morals.
"... 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."
It's all nice and well until you have someone like that move in next to you, contract a preventable desease and infect you with it. As hypothetical as it gets, I'm aware... but what about that case?
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.
I would hope they would be required to pay for your medical care, assuming you could prove they infected you.
Except of course that Hitler never got more than 30 some percent of the vote (at least while there were actually other options to vote for). Hitler never "got the popular vote." Although he did get a larger share than anyone else. I would have to do a more in depth study to know the answer, but there is a significant chance that if 1930s Germany had had a two party system similar to that of the U.S. Hitler would not have won enough votes to pull off what he did.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I don't think it's really about when LIFE begins -- sure, they'll say that, but that's not the question. Shit, a single cell is ALIVE. My skin cells are alive, but you don't consider it murder if I get a mole removed. The question is not when it becomes ALIVE, but when it becomes a HUMAN BEING...and more specifically, when it becomes conscious. Which is hard to decide, since as far as I know we still don't really know what consciousness _is_. Of course, if the person is a bit more radical, they start talking about when it stops being a parasite....
Both candidates are pig-ignorant when it comes to scientific matters and so are their VPs.
Why do you think that? They both went to Harvard law school, I'd hope they took at least SOME science classes in their undergraduate.
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,
Nah, everyone has answers to those. We should ask them to solve, on the board in front of everyone, a simple derivative. Then calculate the speed of a falling object at time T. Then give a brief description of how an internal combustion engine works. Maybe even get into their field, political science, and ask them what they think of the geopolitical ramifications of the end of the Westphalian system.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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
I disagree. Even if you accept two human beings are involved, it is still totally internal to one human being.
Using your logic birth control should be illegal if it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.
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.
Tell that to the teabaggers. they've been trying to drag us back to this era since day one.
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.
As someone who just graduated from PSU about four months ago...yes. This. Exactly.
Actually, though, he may have been going the other direction...the closer you get to the university, the more nutcases you find trying to make excuses and actually defend the actions of people like Paterno. Shit, there was nearly a riot over them tearing down a statue of him...
The disagreement here, I think, stems from the assumption that left = democrat and right = republican. Pretty much every self-declared "leftist" I know is, at a minimum, VERY unhappy with the democratic party. Most of them would rather vote third party than support Obama any longer. Several of them have been requesting refunds for donations made to the campaign in 2008 (knowing full well they won't get them, but it's about the statement). Most self-declared "conservatives" that I know would rather vote for Obama than Romney. But then again, I'm not in the "bible belt".
Pretty much every engineer and physical scientist I know considers themselves to be on the Libertarian side of things. Some on the right, some on the left. Many people would categorize that as 'the right' (which, in many cases, is wrong...but in many cases is certainly accurate.) But there's a COLOSSAL difference between that and the current Republican party.
Most of the scientists and science-oriented people I know in other areas tend to be on the left. But a sizable percentage of those will be voting third party rather than supporting the Dems any further.
Actually Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the President of Germany in 1933. The National Socialist Party came in second place in the 1930s general election, and Hitler came in second in the 1932 Presidential election. In 1932 the National Socialist Party got 37.3% of the vote, and in a second election in 1932 the Nazis got 33.1% of the vote. In both those elections the Nazis received the largest share of the vote. After those two elections, the results are tainted because the Nazis used their Machtergreifung voter suppression campaign to increase their share of the vote and suppress the vote of their opponents.
So they were elected by a minority, but I'm not sure it qualifies as "a (relatively) small number of people voting for" them because they received 14 million votes and 17 million votes in the 1932 elections.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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
The linked question focused on rare earth elements. The context of the question #13 seems to exclude water, which is handled specifically in question #8, and which communicates much more prevalently across state lines than fossils and minerals.
That implies that if he does denounce them he will be electable.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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."
Except of course that Hitler never got more than 30 some percent of the vote (at least while there were actually other options to vote for).
They had 37% at the peak. The election before dismantling of democracy in Germany actually had them at 33%. However, the Nazis were basically in a coalition with another (somewhat less extreme) nationalist party - DNVP - those getting 8% of the vote. So together they had slightly over 41%
However, what followed had nothing to do with two-party vs multi-party system. Hitler came to power not by claiming majority support, but by orchestrating a scheme that put him into position as a Chancellor by presidential decree, and then further plotting to get Hindenburg to invoke emergency powers to censor opposition. In a two-party system, the only thing that'd possibly be different is that Nazis and nationalists would've likely been a single party. On the other hand, it's not a given that social democrats and communists (who together were the main opposition to Nazis at that time) would have gotten together - commies basically did what Stalin told them to do, and he told them to not block with social democrats.
Pray tell, how did that "majority of scientists" get their degrees? Did they, perhaps, attend public high schools and universities? Were their tuitions paid by public money? Did they take public transit while working as poor grad students? Are their labs funded through public grants?
Scientists can be conned into voting against their own best interests just like anyone else. My wife knows a researcher at one of the big national labs in the middle of the country who rails against "wasteful" government spending, while not realizing that her own livelyhood came from that exact source. Her reasoning? "I earned that scholarship and these NSF grants! The guys who built the shrimp treadmill are just wasting money!".
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.
+5 Good analogy
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.
Talk like this is what feeds the proof. Babies, in any internal form, are not parasites. Learn to read.
I'm not a Ron Paul voter but you're talking out of your ass. He never made any such comments. Slavery is antithetical to libertarianism and I request you find one quote of Ron's to back up your allegations.
There is really no way to know how things would have played out if Germany had had a two party rather than multi-party system. There is a line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have had more trouble getting to a level of support high enough to get any power in a two party system. There are a lot of reasons to accept that argument. Of course there is an alternate line of argument that suggests that the Nazi Party would have been able to cannablize one of the major parties if there had been a two party system in place. There is really no way to know how electoral politics would have played out if the Weimar Republic had been a two party system instead of a multi-party system (although I favor the argument that says that it would have been harder for the Nazis to acquire sufficient power to overthrow democracy--harder, not impossible).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
He's said that such things are not a federal matter and he would let the states decide.
He's made that very clear and his apologists bring it up whenever you bring up his religious leanings. He's not going to impose Christianity, he's going to let the states do that.
After Ross Pero, they seem to limit the presidential debates to whom they think has a chance of winning. The woman's league got pissed at this and actually stopped hosting the debates at one point in time (I don't know if they resumed or not).
Most likely the questions were operating under the same principle. Not to many people care about the Green Party or the Communist party candidate who may not even be on the ballot in some states.
Ron Paul isn't trying to run third party this turn. He was trying to get the Republican nomination. He suspended the actual attempt at that but not his campaign back when there was some dispute about delegate distribution in some states he did quite well in.
Some people are claiming there will be a delegate revolution at the convention but it doesn't seem likely to succeed.
What-ifs are always dubious.
Anyway, I think OP's point was rather a response to the claim that the lack of two-party system was what screwed up Germany in 1930s. Rather, it was a general failure of democracy, when enough people (not necessarily the majority, just enough to make it look semi-legit and get everyone else to stand down or suppress them) wanted to make their society authoritarian. Besides, the real tools of Nazi power, even early on, were SA and SD - i.e. popular paramilitary militia - not German parliamentary democracy. I don't see any reason why the same couldn't happen in US, if enough people wanted to.
No, it implies that only if he denounces them that will he be electable.
They sound similar but it's literally the inverse logical connector:
"If he does that he will be electable" = (He denounces them) --> (He will be electable)
"Only if he does that will he be electable" = (He denounces them) -- (He will be electable)
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Someone mod the parent post +10,000 insightful.
Everyone knows that politicians say one thing to get elected and often do their own thing once in office. Even the current administration suffers this problem quite well.
Enforcing morality is not the role of government.
If you're talking about what people should or shouldn't do, or any other kind of "should", you're talking about morality. Unless you're suggesting that the government isn't in the business of telling people "don't do that" (and backing that up with force, no less), then it sure seems like enforcing morality is the role of the government.
Conversely stated, if it isn't worth the government enforcing it, it's not really a moral issue. The problem is a lot of people have an inflated sense of morality based off the whims of some mythical sky fairy, whereas the law in a liberal democracy is based on (generally speaking) living and letting live -- it's not wrong unless it hurts someone else. So to those people, what the government is in the business of doing has a small intersection with what they consider "morality". But what they consider morality is wrong, and people who value liberty do themselves a disservice to accede to their mistaken conception of morality.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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?
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.
The whole neighbourhood's... district... city?
However far the infection spread.
In my imaginary world that would be the alternative to treatment and to select it one would have to post a huge bond or have insurance that would cover this.
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.
From a pedantic aspie point of view you're correct, but from an idiomatic English sense you're way off the mark.
If I intend to play tennis tomorrow, weather be damned, I don't say "Tomorrow I'm going to play tennis if it's sunny." I agree it's technically true, because I didn't say "only if it's sunny", but I'd simply omit the part in italics. And no sane person would add "... or if it's raining or if it snows or hails or if there's a tornado ... ".
tl;dr If it's unconditionally true or false, stating a condition is redundant and confusing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Think people would go for it? I mean do you really think so?
Not at all.
People are way to into "fuck you, I got mine".
Because of that we pretty much have to force people to get insurance. Just like car insurance.
So... what's the net gain then? You're in a position of forcing people to do A or B, but either way, it's forced.
From a pedantic aspie point of view you're correct
You know, I don't have Asperger's, but it's really offensive when you use it derogatorily like that. Not offensive to me for implying that I have it, but offensive for implying that there's something wrong with people who do.
tl;dr If it's unconditionally true or false, stating a condition is redundant and confusing.
But we're not talking about something being unconditionally true. We're talking about "only on the condition that he denounces them will he possibly be electable"; which doesn't say that he definitely will be electable on that condition, but that that condition is a prerequisite for his electability. That's an "only if". An "if" would say that "on the condition that he denounces them, he will definitely be electable"; which leaves open the possibility that he might be electable anyway, but that his denouncing them will guarantee that he's electable.
"If P, then Q" means that P is sufficient for Q: that if you have P, you'll definitely get Q (and you might get Q anyway even if you don't have P).
"Only if P, then Q" means that P is necessary for Q: that unless you have P, you will never get Q (and you might not get Q anyway even if you do have P).
GGP was saying the latter: that a necessary condition for Paul's electability is his denouncing slavery and misogyny. You inferred from that that just denouncing slavery and misogyny would be enough to make him electable, which doesn't follow. He needs to denounce slavery and misogyny to be electable, but that isn't necessarily enough by itself to make him electable.
For another example: I can continue living only if I have ready access to oxygen, but that doesn't mean that so long as I have access to oxygen I cannot die. Oxygen is necessary, but not sufficient, for life.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The problem with you position is that you essentially said human life is important unless someone has a medical procedure that ends another life, then it's no one's business but the one person getting the medical procedure.
If you are truly willing to believe that human life starts at conception, then the medical procedure would be the termination of another life. We can then slip into the entire, you need a kidney, he has a good one and is going to die as long as I get it problem, and keep the same "it's no one's business but mine concerning what medical procedure I can have".
The real conservative is not enforcing morality in this situation, they are enforcing the rights of the life being killed. With the Kidney slip, it is obvious how wrong/illegal it is to kill or take the life of someone to get a medical procedure (and rightly so). But with Abortion, even though you are willing to accept it is a life, you can't see the same protections for human life being valid.
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)