Slashdot Mirror
Obama and Romney Respond To ScienceDebate.org Questionnaire
rhsanborn writes "President Barack Obama and Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney have both responded to a questionnaire on the 'most important science policy questions facing the United States.' The questionnaire was created by ScienceDebate.org, a group consisting of many influential organizations in science and engineering. The questions are on many topics including research, internet regulation, and climate change."
My candidate wasn't included!
Romney believes what he is paid to believe.
Just worthless. Corpro-bot 2.0
... I don't want either one of them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The page is coming up slow. I hope it's already slashdotted, or else it's in for a rude awakening.
you are welcome science debate
Critiquing science positions: bashing
Calling people you disagree with "tards": sensible debate.
repeating verbal diarrhea. Not a chance of him answering the question without running off on a political diatribe
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
YOU have just been slashdotted. Enjoy the bandwidth bill!
sudo make me a sandwich
How long before technology figures out a way to beat the slashdot effect?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Obama never mention romney's name. Romney mention Obama in comparison 12 time. Furthermore some answer particularly on GW are less than satisfying. But hey. I don't vote so... Have fun all.
So net neutrality is pandering to special interests and "picking winners and losers" according to Romney? Any leader who considers the individual a special interest, and thinks that not backing net neutrality isn't by default picking winners and losers is either an idiot or a liar, or both. Picking winners and losers is your damn job - pretty much the crux of it. The "letting the market decide" BS is letting the powerful corporate interests win. Any "invisible hand" or "let the market decide" crap went out the window with the bailouts.
neither link works for me. /. effect?
At least not for EVERY question.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
sciencedebate.org Consider yourself slashdotted.
http://web.archive.org/web/20100427074402/http://sciencedebate.org/www/index.php?id=42
I can't get over how blatantly misleading and disingenuous republicans are about this issue. If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue. They *must* realize that if they came out and said what the consequences of letting net neutrality fail are there would be massive public outcry - which you would think, as public representatives, would lead them to support it!
Corrupt, idealistic motherfuckers.
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
Google Cache worked for me, link here
Coral CDN: http://www.sciencedebate.org.nyud.net/debate12/
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.sciencedebate.org/debate12/&hl=en&prmd=imvns&strip=1
No, Mitt. There really is no "lack of scientific consensus". Two years ago it was at 97% of scientists in agreement.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Romney is tasked with communicating his values and strategy. Showing he has a grasp on the foundation of science research is important, the foundation is a government which has enough money to pay for it because the economy is good and the next generation which is well educated. Subtle changes can make a massive difference and understanding what you are doing it key to making the right changes. In this way intelligent people can see his reasoning and decide if they agree with his thinking or not. This is more important than the actual policies because its rare of policies proposed to be the policies enacted. But his understanding the science research starts in K-12 building the scientist up through his/her phd and then having sufficient funds from government and finally focusing on the types of research that help produce innovation so that all of the mentioned aspects can be improved for the next iteration.
Obama is focused on actions because you already know his values, he did the things he values in his first term. He can't change intelligent people's opinions of his values so he talks about specifics. I will pay X dollars for Y program etc.
Coal is a good example. If coal bad because it releases CO2 or is coal good because it enables cheap electricity that allows jobs to stay in the USA allows a higher job base making better students and allowing for more money in research which may find a simple solution to global warming that is cheap?
Is solar good because it is clean power? Or is solar bad because it currently sucks money from other forms of energy and research in other forms of energy that would have produced a higher return? These are value decisions. You know the differences between them now you can ask yourself which you think is more intelligent and in tune with reality...
Interesting that Romney actually states that he believes global warming is both occurring and partly due to human activity. That's a pretty big change from the standard Republican line. (Of course, he also says that he'll essentially do nothing about it, since China is worse than us and he doesn't want to threaten the coal industry...)
It does make me wonder though - Romney mentions putting more into nuclear power, but Obama doesn't mention it. Considering that Obama removed a lot of the red tape preventing nuclear plants being approved, you'd think he'd at least mention it considering that energy policy is a fairly big issue. It makes me wonder if Fukishima has changed the Democratic party line on nuclear power.
Just once though, I'd like to see some politicians give some straight answers instead of treating everything like a campaign ad. Their answers have a lot of words, but very little meaning.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
He said the size of the effects hasn't been nailed down, and that the science should inform the political solutions rather than dictate them. Pretty sensible, for a politician.
Zero is a size!
When you measure his position, his momentum becomes uncertain. When you measure his momentum, his position becomes uncertain.
From Romney:
So ... more "research" instead of doing anything?
But at least we know that we don't need more "research" to know that Obama is the problem:
Romney cannot spell out what HE would do but he can blame Obama for doing what Obama has done.
I think the submitter meant their staffers responded to the questionnaire, based upon deliberations a to which answers will get the most votes. I doubt either Obama or Romney even saw the questionnaire.
Obama is "committed" to act on every part, Romney think Obama failed.
None talked about patents, about IP laws being a problem in innovation. None talked about nuclear energy when asked about their energy plans. On net neutrality, Romney begins to talk like he really understand what this is about then goes on to criticize Obama for one of the few things he did correctly.
People of Amercia, I regret that you have such a poor choice, but if you think they are equivalent, please read about Romney on foreign relations or religion. I know they are not an important subject in US elections, but they explain why most of the world root for Obama.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Browse through the cache or view in plain text on Pastebin.
Calling the people you agree with "tards" does not work well either.
Since both candidates (but especially Romney) blabbered on for so long, I thought it might be helpful to have a summary of the candidates' positions. I tried to make it as accurate and neutral as possible, but I couldn't resist a few editorial comments.
Q1: How will you ensure America remains a world leader in innovation?
Obama: Double funding for research agencies, train more STEM teachers.
Romney: Increase visa caps for foreign workers, permanent residence for foreign grad students, cut taxes, make regulation harder, aggressive trade attitudes towards China and increased free trade agreements with "nations committed to principles of free enterprise", education reform, increase funding for basic research. [Much of this doesn't have anything to do with innovation as far as I can see, but this is what he said. -ed]
Q2: How will you deal with climate change?
Obama: Continue pushing for the same policies as before (e.g. invest in "clean energy" increased fuel economy standards, carbon emission limits for new power plants, international efforts to reduce emissions).
Romney: Doesn't believe there is a scientific consensus; suggests "No Regrets" policy (i.e. every policy implemented must yield benefits to America even if global warming is a hoax or if no other nations do anything; example: development of "low-emissions technology" and removal of regulations including nuclear power regulations)
Q3: How will you fund research programs?
Obama: Set goal to spend more than 3% of GDP on public and private research and development. Also argues that his administration's research funding, including stimulus funding, has yielded and/or will yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Romney: No explicit details on future plans, but implied proposal to implement new policies that "facilitate medical innovation" (i.e. relaxation of FDA regulations). Argues that Obama administration's research programs have not yielded and/or will not yield enough benefits for the money spent.
Q4: How will you deal with the threat of a pandemic?
Obama: Strengthen public health systems.
Romney: Strengthen public health systems, relax regulations on pharmaceutical companies to encourage innovation
Q5: How will you fix the education system?
Obama: Train more (good) STEM teachers (with private and charity support).
Romney: Destroy the teachers' unions, school choice, increase focus on standards and testing.
Q6: Where will you get energy from?
Obama: Increased development of renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biofuels), continue existing natural gas-friendly policies.
Romney: Relax environmental restrictions on oil and gas extraction and pipelines both onshore and offshore, but retain a full commitment to environmental protection [which really tells us nothing about how he plans to balance these factors... -ed], pursue energy free-trade treaties, reassess nation's energy reserves to reflect new technology [the implication is that Romney thinks the whole "energy independence" thing is overblown and we actually have plenty of oil, though this is not explicitly stated -ed] more focus on coal and oil than Obama's plan.
Q7: How will you protect the food supply:
Obama: Increase regulation by FDA in general; reduce use of antibiotics and pesticides; strict regulations on pesticides and other agricultural chemicals by FDA.
Romney: "Work closely with industry" to implement the preventive practices recommended by the industry.
Q8: How will you protect the water supply?
Obama: Increase investment in water infrastructure (esp. in rural areas) and funding to water conservation programs.
Romney: Re-examine water regulations; switch to more market-based approaches.
Q9: How will you handle the internet?
Obama: Protect intellectual property without reducing freedom of expression [another one of these answers that tells you nothing about how these factors will actually be balanced... -ed], shore up cybersecurity
Romney: Get rid of Net Neutrality.
1) government science policy is driven by politics, not science, and
2) both candidates are politicians, i.e. shills for their respective pwners, then
3) the entire exercise was a complete waste of time.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Mitt Romney's answers remind me of students who think that if they make an answer lengthy enough and yet stay away from saying anything concrete they can't get an answer right on a test. I guess no one ever told him it was always content that mattered and not quantity.
I'm not a huge fan of Obama but at least he keeps his answers concise and answer them with out going on for half a page or attacking his and then not answering the question at all. It's like Romney thinks he is in a debate on TV and not actually writing his answers down on for everyone to read an examine closely.
Unfortunately, it is hard to find anything controversial or interesting in these answers, which is to be expected when political teams are given time to craft PC responses to questions like these. Everything here is what you would expect - Obama answers the questions by talking up his policies of the past 4 years and Mitt answers the questions by attacking Obama's policies of the past 4 years. I would much rather see these questions posed in a debate, where the candidates have less time and less help in coming up with responses.
It's scary, SouthPark had it right years ago.
The message from the episode though is useless.
Short of being "liberated" by another country, we are screwed again.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Focusing NASA. A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities....
Strengthening Security. Space-based information capabilities are the central nervous system of the U.S. national security community. If America is to remain strong as a nation, the national security space programs must remain strong and sustainable. I am committed to a robust national security space program and I will direct the development of capabilities that defend and increase the resilience of space assets. I will also direct the development of capabilities that will deter adversaries seeking to damage or destroy the space capabilities of the U.S. and its allies.
So, Let us not increase funding on the quasi civilian space program who's public mission is to promote space and motivate scientific endeavor, just be clearer with priorities that are dictated by people with no priority in space. However, let us increase spending ("robust") on some sort of defense system to protect our space assets and those of our "allies", but we can't tell you what that is because it is "National Security"
What a load of crap. Mr. Romney seems to day, We wont spend money on exploration and good science; we'll dump buckets of money on defense contracts to protect assets unknown to the public. How will we py for it? Don't ask us, we wont tell.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
"Focusing NASA. A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs."
Yes.. they don't need more funding. They just need to be told what to do. Brilliant.
I love how both candidates completely ignored the heart of the vaccination issue, pretending that the reason vaccination rates have fallen is due to people being unable to afford them or supplies running out, rather than the complete failing of our educational system, which has produced a generation of idiots who think that some celebutard's cry about vaccination-caused autism is somehow more worth listening to than a century of sound medical practice. I forget who originated the quote, but it goes something like "Democracy does not mean that your ignorance has an equal voice with my knowledge."
Anyway, just more of the same political dodging. We can't call people reckless morons for endangering themselves AND OTHERS by refusing to get themselves and their children vaccinated, because they might vote for me! I'd really like to have political interviews where we can tie the candidates down and keep asking the same question until they actually answer it,
Picking winners and losers is your damn job - pretty much the crux of it.
In what way is that the role of the president?
The presidents job should be VERY FAR away from that role. They should not be picking individual winners or losers, they should be thinking of ways to help people in general, not in groups.
If you claim the president should be picking "winners and losers" then you are also in support of:
1) The war on drugs (winner, drag cartels, looser, drug users).
2) Banks (banks that are "too big to fail" will be constantly refreshed with government funds).
3) Wars where you decide who in the nation gets to rule.
It has always struck me as funny that so many people that want to keep companies out of the government are seeking to draw them in via net neutrality. Once Comcast is told what to do by the FCC do you think lobbying will go substantially down, or up? And the best part is then Comcast can do whatever it likes because the rules came "from the government". If you loved the torrent throttling they tried to get away with you should be delighted with the total torrent ban in effect once network neutrality rules start allowing the government dictate how networks should be run - and who they can reach. After all, neutrality means only that you must be able to reach equally VALID network endpoints...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
humans are only 2100 years old
is the blue font on blue background on the science debate page.
If you didn't know any better and you read Romney's response alone you would likely come away with a completely reversed view of the issue.
What makes you think YOUR view is not the one reversed?
Explain briefly one simply problem that proposed Net Neutrality laws will address.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The promotion of innovation will begin on Day One, with efforts to simplify the corporate tax code, reform job retraining programs, reduce regulatory burdens, and protect American intellectual property around the world."
In other words more of the same nonsense from the patent office and more stupid counter productive lawsuits, more money in the pockets of lawyers. Most importantly keep the American populace heading to Walmart to spend spend spend. Essentially Romney is just another shill for what screwed up the economy in the first place. Not to mention do nothing to regulate the corporate crooks that made 2008 inevitable in the first place.
If business becomes amoral and the practice of it does not include a concept of responsibility then essentially it becomes a public liability. To quote Jacob Marley "Mankind was my business!" Until America awakens to the truth in these words and corporations world wide are really held accountable for their actions there will be little hope for stable economic growth. Not all business persons are immoral but it says something when the "greed is good" credo of the 1990 still resonates strongly within the political framework of the nation.
So, what's the answer? Are they for science, or against it?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
OTOH, his position makes inaction justifiable.
Why is that bad?
Would you rather they panic and we get the AGW equivalent of the Patriot Act, causing a lot of harm for very little real gain?
With politicians you WANT the default action to be "none", because otherwise you just get ill-informed bullshit codified into law.
A USEFUL course of action must be clear. We already know we have dropped carbon emissions to Kyoto levels already, so why in fact SHOULD we do anything more at the moment?
Republican's will have us "wait for the science to come in" up until the floodwaters are approaching Denver.
And you would prefer we double the cost of heating and gas for poor people before an inch of rise is observed?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Q: How will you deal with [scientific challenge]?
Obama: Create/expand a government program or incentive (with no explanation of what existing programs will have to be cut to compensate)
Romney: Eliminate government regulations and let the industry take care of itself (with no explanation of how to deal with inevitable industry abuses)
(How much you trust their answers or are concerned about their non-answers will probably depend on how much you subscribe to their political philosophy.)
Really? How many years of "research" did the tobacco companies fund to "research" if there was any correlation between smoking and cancer.
And always the results came back "inconclusive".
Converting candidate responses from legalese to English, please wait...*
... Pass.
Question 1: Innovation and the Economy:
BO: I plan on dumping at least twice as much money into corporate pocketbooks via the continued fucking-up of the US intellectual property process. Oh, yea, and I plan on hiring a shitload of STEM teachers to prep future patent lawyers, er, "engineers" for this task.
MR: Less taxes and regulation for businesses, more H1B Visas and foreign "trade agreements" that take jobs away from Americans.
Question 2, Climate Change:
BO: Sure, it's a problem, but I've already dumped a shit-ton of your money into the "clean energy" companies my buddies own, as well as attempting to set up a "carbon credit exchange" scam, er, system, that would have funneled even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of my campaign contributors - what the fuck else do you expect me to do about it?
MR: Probably bullshit, but I won't let my disbelief in the concept prevent me from using this as an opportunity to badmouth my opponent and recommend further redistribution of wealth to my also-rich homies!
Furthermore, since China doesn't give a fuck about the environment, I don't think we should either.
Question 3: Research and the Future:
BO: Uh, like I said before - more of the public's money given to corporations so they can privately profit; seriously, what don't you guys get about that?
MR: Agreed, with the caveat of, you guessed it, less regulation for the same corporations. After all, corporations are people, and if you can't trust people with your money...
Question 4: Pandemics and Biosecurity:
BO:
MR: Less taxes and regulation on business... Oh, and more public surveillance. How are we supposed to know who's sick if we're not watching you all 24/7?
Question 5: Education:
BO: Earlier in my administration, I proposed adding 100,000 STEM (science, tech, engineering, and math) teachers... just don't ask how that's going...
MR: Education is a serious issue these days... which is why I recommend busting teachers' unions, defunding public schools in favor of private "charter" schools, and of course, blaming the current abysmal state of education solely on my opponent.
Question 6: Energy:
BO: Hey, I mentioned giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to my buddies who run "clean energy" companies, right?
MR: I disagree with my opponent; I think we should be giving fuck-tons of taxpayer money to the oil companies my buddies run instead.
Can I getta 'Keystone Pipeline,' anyone?
Question 7: Food:
BO: Food safety was pretty fucked up when I came to office, so I made new rules that changes what qualifies as 'fucked up.'
MR: More government regulation and taxes. Hey, if those agri-business chumps want the same deal I give the oil and pharmaceutical companies, they need to pony up some campaign bucks, ya dig?
Question 8: Water:
BO: My administration has invested millions in fresh water conservation and restoration efforts. Granted, these programs would have existed anyway regardless of who held this office at the time, but hey - I do, so I get to take the credit. Suck it, Bush.
MR: Disband the EPA, less regulation on businesses, privatize the 'fresh water industry'.
What could possibly go wrong?
Question 9: The Internet:
BO: I promise to ensure online freedoms, granted they don't run afoul of all the new intellectual property and civilian surveillance we have/are coming up with.
Ha ha, remember when I told you I was going to veto CISPA? Suckers...
MR: The internet is for businesses to make money off of. Period. End of discussion. If you're somehow, some way preventing businesses from making as much money as possible from the internet, my administration will come down on
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
...all pawns and no kings chess game! Both of these idiots say exactly what they are paid to say, and nothing more. In order for REAL CHANGE to occur an independent candidate would have to get in, congress would need to be re-seated with impartial congressmen, and the senate would have to be re-seated with impartial senators. Then everyone would have to come together for the better of the country and not the better of the rich or the corporations. The probability of all of this happening is so close to 0 that there is no point in even calculating it. EndRant:
I'm not seeing any answers. All I see is a press release saying that they answered.
Both candidates state and reiterate that science should inform policy. Both cite, or at least suggest they are aware of, numerous scientific studies and findings that substantiate a given political position. However neither (and I'm being generous when I attribute these responses to the candidates personally, obviously these weren't typed up by our candidates. But their general close counsel suffices as "them") is able to clearly outline the data and present a reasonable set of forward-progressions for solving the problems. They cite numbers and statistics when convenient and overwhelmingly convincing, but they never lay out their policy and shore it up with actual data at every possible position.
You never hear either state "we would like to do X, but need to further investigate the consequences with studies of Y. If Y = a, X is going to be our way to the future. However if Y = b, X is clearly a red herring and we need to tackle this problem via option Z." I always lament the tendency of presidential candidates to profess clairvoyant supernatural intelligence. They never want to admit that nobody knows the right answer. I'd vote for the first guy that said "We, as a Nation, don't actually have an answer for this based on the data- but I will use our substantial economic influence to suss out the right answer and build policy around it." That'd be it for me, my vote would be sewn up.
im getting a 404 error on the question/ answer section wtf.
Romney: ... However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk.
I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer
Really?
We have the filibuster in the Senate, which prevents anything from getting done until you get a 3/5ths vote, which is tough for any one party to reach.
paintball
I wouldn't say you replied to flamebait, but he sure got burned.
Am I the only one to have problems with the site? It's confusing, and it looks like the very page where the answers are is 404'd.
As of 6:40PM EST, basically every link on that site 404s. Is this the same for anyone else?
Isaac Asimov quote from a column in Newsweek - Jan 21st, 1980
'There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."'
Source:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c93xs/antiintellectualism_has_been_a_constant_thread/
When you measure his position, his momentum becomes uncertain. When you measure his momentum, his position becomes uncertain.
That's because his conscience is guiding his behaviors. And since, as a politician, his conscience is the size of a subatomic particle, quantum effects come into play.
Other politicians usually fasten onto some other guiding principle, such as an ideology or greed. But since Romney is all about his principles, we get this weird Heisenbergian behavior when attempting to observe him too closely.
Next up, we throw Romney through a particle accelerator at a series of slits to test for an interference pattern.
:-P
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
What shape best describes the Earth?
Obama: Oblate spheroid
Romney: Flat
What, exactly, do you think will happen without net neutrality laws?
Nothing that has not already happened.
Will all the ISP monopolies suddenly start acting like they have competition?
Why don't you ask the local governments that MAKE them monopolies. Them being monopolies is NOT NATURAL.
Even then, you usually have a choice between DSL, Cable, and some kind of wireless (by that I mean fixed wireless, not cell).
Will Comcast just never try to get away with throttling torrents again?
Here's a thought - would any network neutrality law proposed to date have stopped what Comcast did? No it would not. And it was MARKET FORCES that stopped Comcast, when they were found out they shut that down. Under Network Neutrality in fact it's far more likely you'd not be doing any torrents at all because they will probably be on a banned server list, which thanks to Network Neutrality laws must be obeyed by the ISP and no traffic allowed there even by direct IP.
Do you realize that if there are no "rules from the government", then ISP's can just do what they want anyway?
Do you realize we already know that's not true BECAUSE of Comcast? It was shown we do NOT need new rules to address real problems. What has yet to be shown to any reasonable degree is why it is preferable to let the government dictate what goes over a network. I'm curious between the greater costs which get passed to you, or the lack of freedom to access anything on the network without blocks, between those which yoke do you feel chafes less around the neck and seems decorative to you?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Summarized:
The Top American Science Questions: 2012 ...
1. What policies will you be putting in place that will keep America an Innovation leader?
O - Doubling funding to key research agencies
O - Goal of 100,000 new STEM teachers (science, technology engineering math) - with the goal of 1 Million new STEM graduates
M - Raise visa caps to allow for more foreign workers
M - Offer permanent residence to foreign knowledge workers
M - Reduce taxes on corporations
M - More vigorously defend intellectual property rights abroad
M - Deregulate industry
M - Ambiguous education reform
2. Climate Change. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
O - Policies that lead to the growth of using alternative energy
O - Already limited greenhouse emissions from vehicles
O - Large investments in green energy
O - Reduce emissions within federal government
O - Reduced dependency on oil (Claim is already readuced 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, US is at a 20 year low)
M - Believes in climate change, and that human activity is a contributor, though because of "lack of scientific consensus" believes the next step is more debate / investigation
M - Believes that Obama policy will "bankrupt the coal industry" (poor guys)
M - Opposed to carbon tax or cap-and-trade systems
M - Supports government funded research on low-emission technology
M - Supports investment in nuclear power
3. What priority would you give to investment in research in your upcoming budgets?
O - Strong support
O - Current level is 3% of GDP, which is higher then the level achieved during space race
O - Created Recovery Act, - $100 Billion dollars in research spending / education / training / etc. $90 Billion of which was devoted to clean energy.
* Plans to make R&D tax credit permanent
M - Strong supporter as well
M - Critical of where money gets spent, would divy it up differently
M - Does not list actual intentions
4. OHMEGERD Bird flu.
O - Chill. We got it.
M - Further investment in public health monitoring systems (?)
M - Reduced restrictions on FDA
5. Our kids suck at science. How do we fix it?
O - Educate to innovate program, 100,000 STEM teachers
M - Spending ineffective
M - Teachers unions bad
M - Wants more choice for parents as to which schools their children go to
M - Higher standards (More national tests?)
6. Energy. What policies?
O - "All of the above" energy approach (wind, solar, oil, coal, etc.)
O - Since taking office Solar / Wind production doubled
O - World leader in natural gas production (100 year supply quoted)
M - Goal energy independence within a decade
M - Allow states to make decisions regarding energy resources on federal land within their borders
M - Open Off-shore drilling
M - Energy partnership with North america NAEP
M - Use federal money for performing energy surveys
M - restore "transparency and fairness" to permitting and regulation
M - Federal money for private sector energy research
7. Food Safety?
O - Signed comprehensive food safety law reform
O - Increased FDA funding
O - Believes in Organic farming
M - Encourages more "private" participation in regulation process
8. Fresh Water.
O - Grants to water conversation projects
O - Invested in waste water treatment infrastructure
M - Modernize federal laws governing water use
M - Incentives
9. Teh webz.
O - Free / Open internet essential (Net Neutrality)
O - Supports intellectual property law, as long as it doesn't hamper freedom of expression, or undermine innovation
O - Strengthen Cybersecurity, and data confidentiality
M - Believes government should not regulate internet, but should be left to "Mark
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
That website looks to basically be an atheist flame bait and venting forum. One of the poll headlines says "even religious voters overwhelmingly want the candidates to debate science." Even? Seriously? If 80% of the population of the world (the religious population) was anti-science then there would be little to no scientific progress.
Will atheists please stop confusing real/perceived ignorance of an area(s) of science or rejection of some specific subsection of science with being anti-science in general? It is complete and utter nonsense that does absolutely no one any form of good. All it does is piss people off and create larger divides. If someone is wrong, tell them why they are wrong and rise above the childish name calling.
To try and prove yourselves correct about all the "anti-science" religious people, find actual religious people (it won't be hard, you are surrounded by them) and ask them if they think science is important and if they think science is a bad thing. I have never met someone who is "anti-science" in my entire life and most people would be hard pressed to find even a single person like that yet alone a large segment of the religious population. Sure, there are Amish people, and others, that may fit the bill but that is not representative of the majority of religious populations. Stop fantasizing about yourselves standing on a pillar of science looking down on the religious dolts and actually ground yourselves in at least a small dose of reality that you claim to have such an amazing grasp on.
Yeah, this is a bit trolly and flamebaitish but most of that website, the basis of this thread, is even more so. The basic idea that website is founded on is a very good thing, we need more public discussion about these issues. The presentation, insinuations, and tone are downright shameful.
The linked site has posts sub-titled "Climate Denial Crock of the Week," indicating that they're part of the "science is settled" camp. So, anyone that disagrees with any part of the pro-climate-change-thus-pro-green-everything platform is a denier, rather than an alternative viewpoint? We're at an interesting time in the evolution of science, indeed.
by a total count of 30 to 13. However, the competition becomes much closer when the innovation count is normalized to word totals - 0.59% for Mitty compared to 0.40% for Barry. Not a bad effort by both candidates, but I happen to know several businessmen who hover around 3% on their bad days. "Leverage" and "synergy" hardly made an appearance. Clearly, America is doomed regardless of who wins the election.
Iraqi: from Iraq. Israeli: from Israel. Kuwaiti: from Kuwait. Pakistani: from Pakistan. Moroni: from a person with mild mental retardation.
Q: How will you deal with [scientific challenge]?
Obama: Do something.
Romney: Do nothing.
Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.
There is a slippery slope in the other direction too. Once corporate interests control the interwebs, then goodbye to everything we love about it. Slippery-slope arguments are funny like that.
There is a type of republican who thinks that any type of regulation is bad. This is simply black and white thinking. If we ever think of no regulations, then move to Somalia. It is always a question of how much regulation, and what regulations create the right incentive structures. As such, it is a question of economics and law, and a little too nuanced for political discussion.
If you really believe that the proponents of net-neutrality want the government regulating every last bit of the internet, then you're living in bizarro world. If you really believe that corporate interests wouldn't do what special interests want (you scratch my back...), then you're an idiot. It is this type of corporate back-scratching that has destroyed real journalism in modern times. (You'd never say something bad about one of your advertises, for example.)
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
This is 'post' not this rebuttal is completely wrong.
Why not ask Obama Boy what facts or standards that support his
claim of being an 'African-American' when in fact all that he cam claim
is that he is a Bastard!
Why not ask Mitty about the facts of his family's moves from the U.S.A. ... oh yea that was a long time ago and
to Mexico then Back to the U.S.A.
records still can be found today!
Hardy har har on Both.
Neither will want to go into the nitty-gritty facts of themselves!
And for good reason. But that 'good reason' is not absolution.
I would say, Neither should have had the life that they have had.
Neither should have lived at all! They should be dead and rotting.
We, the real citizens of the U.S.A. are better off without them ... the Unelected Government of the U.S.A.! The Others!
and especially the 'others' they hire and will hire to do their
bidding
The Unelected Government of the U.S.A. =
the Quick and the Dead. 'The Quicker they are Dead
the Better'. Yes I am making a 'stretch' and had they not been
born, that would have been the best solution. Yet, They, live
among us and pollute US.
This gives good reason for having asbestos and any other
carcinogens used in the construction of Federal and State Buildings,
especially.
'Welcome to your new career new Federal or State Employee. Live
as long a you can! [Snicker Snicker]'
Yet again ... the trap is set.
Wow! Those 'Founding Fathers' were a bunch of mean Sons of Bitches!
I like that.
8D
You shouldn't be voting.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
For a hundred years or so americans have been amused, amazed and embarrassed by the bizarre beliefs of the mormons. Unfortunately we are currently distracted by the strange behavior of scientologists and a particular movie star adherent who is seeking a new scientologist girlfriend.
In our neverending search for novelty have we forgotten the weirdness of mormonism? Have we forgotten the thirst for power that drives the mormon church? Are we going to let that organization sit quietly in the background while we consider their pawn to lead this country?
The statements you have seen from Obama and Rmoney are from advisers. The candidates have likely never seen them. Look instead to the forces behind the candidates if you want to know where their loyalties lie.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Somehow nearly every topic seems to be magically connected to his plans for tax lowering and the Obama government spending money to stabilize the economy.
It seems his answers were generated by dadadodo from the party program.
Moreover, not taking a unique standpoint on climate change is cowardish. Blaming that to a "lack of consensus" in the scientific community is ridiculous. In the scientific community always some people may disagree. However, the scientific community pretty much knows what thet know and what they dont know. To let oil-indudtry financed thinka tanks shuffle up singluar scientists "opinions" doe not sound like one would be interested in making science a base for sound decisions.
And yes, the calculation *that* emissions from Humans will severly affect Climate *severly* can be done on a single A4 (or letter) page using only a pencil and the knowledge about the suns surface temperature, the infrared absorbtion rate of CO2 and the Oil//Coal/Gas usage, and the current CO2 content in the atmosphere.
And it's more than 100% of the warming from human activity (with feedbacks) because we SHOULD be cooler than we are because of the PDO cooling phase and a cooler (less active) sun.
Tell me, why would the assertion make you lose all respect for the science? Because you'd have to think that the statement was OBVIOUSLY untrue. But to think that, you'd need a different figure, some error bars on that figure, some evidence for those figures and some calculation of whether your results are significantly different from the 97%'s figures to show it is obviously wrong.
And you have none of those, do you.
That was one the major rejections about Kyoto Protocol.
As Europe lowered its emissions, it also increased imports from China and India. They may not be related, but it looks that way.
Seriously, how do you sleep at night?
You included Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry PAC spending that was all directed at Romney and Romney PAC spending directed at all those while the Obama PAC had no one in his own party to beat up on. I can't imagine why Romney's PAC would have needed such a massive war chest.
Listing them by total spending is deliberately misleading without context or cut off dates.
Instead of re-summarizing what the candidates say, I'm going to resummarize all the slashdotter summaries:
Obama fan: Obama nailed it every time, Romney was completely full of disingenuous shit.
Romney fan: Romney nailed it every time, Obama was completely full of disingenuous shit.
Everyone else: wow, they're both completely full of crap.
-Styopa
I know I'm NOT voting for Obama or Romney.
It's the first week of September. Why the hell should I have to know who I'm voting for already?
I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson, but I'm also considering voting for Ron Paul as a write-in or simply not voting.
Gary Johnson would be 100X better than Obama or Romney. However, I have serious problems with his foreign policy views, his opinions on the U.S. banking and financial system and some other things. I'll probably vote for him however because his votes will at least be counted.
Tragically, I think the best case scenario would be for Romney to lose with the perception that Johnson garnered enough support from Ron Paul Republicans to deny Romney a victory.
I'm not voting for either of the major party candidates either. I considered writing in Ron Paul, but I think that would be misinterpreted so I'm writing in Rick Santorum.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Gonna have to say Point: Romney (campaign). Obviously neither of them had time to write that out themselves.., but if they both are planning on producing actions similar to what they responded with, Romney wins hands down. I'm still astonished I took the time to actually read it, but I'm kinda glad I did. After sifting through all the filler text, Obama and Romney said a lot of the same things, but Romney's response had better-defined actions.
ScienceDebate.org contest:
Obama: 0
Romney: 1
Dear Mr. Romney: TL;DR. Thanks, Samazon
I have the hiccups.
Here's an even further-abbreviated version for those who like to cut straight to what American politics are all about.
Q1: How will you ensure America remains a world leader in innovation?
Obama: Money*, rhetoric
Romney: Free market
Q2: How will you deal with climate change?
Obama: Brags about achievements, money*
Romney: Obama has failed, money*
Q3: How will you fund research programs?
Obama: Brags about achievements, money*
Romney: Obama has failed, free market
Q4: How will you deal with the threat of a pandemic?
Obama: Money*, rhetoric
Romney: Obama has failed, free market, buzzwords
Q5: How will you fix the education system?
Obama: Brags about achievements, money*
Romney: Free market, rhetoric
Q6: Where will you get energy from?
Obama: Brags about achievements, rhetoric
Romney: Obama has failed, free market, small federal government
Q7: How will you protect the food supply:
Obama: Brags about achievements
Romney: Rhetoric, free market
Q8: How will you protect the water supply?
Obama: Brags about achievements, money*
Romney: Free market, small federal government
Q9: How will you handle the internet?
Obama: Rhetoric, buzzwords
Romney: Obama has failed, free market
Q10: How will you protect the world's oceans and fisheries?
Obama: Brags about achievements
Romney: Free market
Q11: How will you use science in the decision-making process?
Obama: Brags about achievements, rhetoric
Romney: Obama has failed
Q12: Space program
Obama: Brags about achievements, rhetoric
Romney: Rhetoric, free market
Q13: Dealing with general natural resource shortages (e.g. rare-earths)
Obama: Brags about achievements, money*
Romney: Rhetoric, small federal government
Q14: What rules will you put in place to require Americans to be vaccinated?
Obama: Brags about achievements
Romney: Rhetoric, free market
* Note: Promises of money may not be met. Even assuming the promises are met, money may be squandered, misspent, embezzled, or simply ineffective.
That phrase, "picking winners and losers," is a loser. It totally denies the structure of human society, in which most achievements require broad collaboration. Yes, collaboration can lead to conspiracy and corruption. But it is also essential to building civilization. A major role of government and politicians is to encourage the healthy sorts of collaboration, and discourage the corrupt sorts. So already, government and politicians should be trying to pick "winners" who display good ethics, and make "losers" of those who don't. Can government go overboard? Sure. Like all things worth doing well, it can also be done badly. But it needs to be attempted, or we end up with conspiracy and corruption dominating, and become a nation like Italy or Afghanistan or Somalia, depending on the degree of that domination.
So the question isn't "Does government pick winners and losers?" Government has to be picking winners, which is to say encouraging collaborations in society among the ethically good players - where "good" in defined in terms of virtues like honesty and concern for the broader well-being of society. Governments aren't just about penalities for those who are bad players (e.g., torturers, those committing fraud in financial institutions - neither of whom are currently penalized, as it happens, due to the weakness of our government), but rewards for those who are good players (including giving them government contracts, such as the Ryan family as prospered from for generations). Government should contract and collaborate with and support good players, and shun and otherwise hinder the bad. That's just essential. And there's no way to separate that from "picking winners and losers." Those who use that phrase are not just opposed to bad government, but even to good government, as if the withering away of the state to produce the utopia foreseen by an intellectual vanguard were not just the failed dream of Karl Marx, but a practical program for today. This libertarian dream is the mirror image of Marxism, and just as evil when put into practice. We need government, we need government to be good, and we need government to be on the side of good, or else good cannot prevail. Because all government is is a large-scale structure for social collaboration. And without that, there can be no civilization.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Romney's response to Question 11:
I understand the cost of a reduction being $10 billion. What does it mean to say that the extent of a reduction in mercury pollution is measured in dollars?
#1 on that list is "Use the words 'judicial activists' non-ironically." The SCOTUS does exactly what it is supposed to do: verifies laws are constitutional. I'm not wild about the current makeup of the court, nor some of their recent decisions... but I uphold their right to make them, because they *do* serve as a check-and-balance. How would you prefer them to work? Or do you just hate them on general principle?
Yea really where is my "None of the Above" check box.
If you want to buy advances in science, you need gold. Romney wants to cut taxes while increasing funding on military unit upkeep, which will reduce the amount of gold available for science. Now cutting taxes will increase happiness at least temporarily, but seeing as how we're not on the verge of unrest or anything, it is unnecessary. Likewise, there is close to 0 risk of invasion and assuming we are not planning any major attacks on our neighbors in the near future (who cares if the Persians are going to be backing their words with nuclear weapons, our words are backed by more), increasing the size of the military is also unnecessary. So I think we can afford to keep taxation where it is or increase it, and disband units to cut military upkeep, thereby increasing the supply of gold available for purchasing scientific advances.
If you think investment money comes that easy, why don't you get a loan from the bank and you know, invest it and make lots of money ?
I'll tell you why. Because investments are risk. You stand to lose it all. With a salary, you might or might not get it next month. It's safe income and doesnt' affect your savings. When you invest in a business you risk all the money you put in if it doesn't work out. The employees you hire get their salary for their work regardles of whether you're successful or not. They don't risk anything. On the other hand, you could have sunk 100k in a restaurant or bar that tanks in a year.
So go and invest some of your money in something and then come back and talk to me about how you want it taxed more because it wasn't "real work".
I know it shouldn't matter, but that site looks like crap! I know I should care more about quality than presentation, but still...*shudders*
If this has been covered, I apologize for re-iterating but the problem with politicians answering questions like this is that they never seem to answer them in the manner of what they actual believe. I say believe because it doesn't have to do with the answer to the question but rather the way it can cater to one side or the other. It becomes politicized and is the case with much of what becomes politicized, it loses its original meaning and instead has been determined to pander to one demographic or the other. So, I really don't think any politicians will answer these sorts of questions in the original context. As well, consider that in a recent Gallup poll, it was found that Republicans would not change their mind even if given sufficient evidence that should change their mind one way or the other. This is decidedly unscientific and those that associate strongly with a political faction seem to held captive by their convictions. Consider that the recent statements from such people as Missouri Congressman Todd Akin in regards to the reproductive system of women who have been raped is not the only anti-science person within, of all things, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee! He is joined by Ralph Hall, who tried to use porn to scuttle a science funding bill, and Paul Broun, a creationist ON THE SCIENCE COMMITTEE! Is it any wonder that I saw "I want neither of them" posted? Politicians and science evidently do not mix.
This is fairly incorrect. US is quite wasteful in its energy use in comparison to other developed nations. The biggest examples are Germany and Japan, manufacturing powerhouses with much lower energy cost (thus emissions) per unit of output, but even India and Mexico are more efficient than the US while China and Vietnam are roughly on par with it. The only large industrial nation that's significantly worse on this metric is Russia.
I love the way that every Romney response looks for a way to fit a partisan response about taxes or immigration policy into the answer and ends with an attack on Obama.
Even though both have some good and not so good answers, I don't think that either of them has a good enough answer to most of questions.
For Obama, his answers are very abstract. In other words, his answers tend to be simplified for layman and are targeted certain group of readers. Because of this abstract type of answers, these answers are often too vague and need to be clarified. I am not sure how he could reach the goal he is promising.
For Romney, his answers are descriptive with many key words that people nowadays want to hear -- job creation, middle class, Reagan Economic, research, economic, etc. One major issue I am seeing is that his answers contain mixed messages (certain answers would be mutual exclusive for certain political side). I think the reason is from his intention to target all groups of readers -- some answers are way far to the left, some for those who are in the middle, and some others are way far to the right. One thing I do not like at all is that his answers contain attack to his opponent. This is exactly one of reasons that politic makes me sick.
All in all, I am not really satisfied with their answers...
Interesting. Imposing a severe carbon tax on America could actually _increase_ global emissions. Unintended consequences.
It's a valid point, but it's also not particularly difficult to avoid those consequences. Simply apply a carbon tax to imported goods as well. Get it right and not only would a carbon tax work to reduce emissions, it would also work to increase domestic manufacturing.
Anyone else get the feeling Obama's answer's are very abstract and somewhat evade from giving anything concrete? Romney does a little bit better, in that his answers contain more detail, and sometimes a plan of attack. I'm an independent. I feel Romney had the better answers with regards to the Science questions posed.
It's a valid point, but it's also not particularly difficult to avoid those consequences. Simply apply a carbon tax to imported goods as well. Get it right and not only would a carbon tax work to reduce emissions, it would also work to increase domestic manufacturing.
When has the government gotten anything right?
this is all preplanned.
http://vacuumcleanerreviewsnow.com/
How do you measure carbon emissions in foreign countries? How do you tax it without breaking WTO rules?
How do you measure carbon emissions in foreign countries? How do you tax it without breaking WTO rules?
You don't need to measure carbon emissions in foreign countries, you only need to set a tariff equivalent to what the carbon tax would be if the goods were manufactured locally. It doesn't have to be particularly accurate, just close enough to discourage moving production offshore purely to avoid the carbon tax. As for WTO rules, the US has repeatedly violated them in the past. What makes you think they'd be reluctant to this time?