Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Government Politics

McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire 829

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the he's-a-hero-ya-know dept.
thebestsophist writes "A couple weeks ago, I reported that Barack Obama had answered a questionnaire by Scientists and Engineers for America. McCain has now answered that questionnaire as well. You can also compare their answers. Perhaps with help from the Slashdot community, we can get all the Congressional candidates as well?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

McCain Answers Science Policy Questionnaire

Comments Filter:
  • Innovation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:48AM (#25011281) Homepage Journal
    In the "innovation" category, one of the first things McCain mentions is

    "I am committed to streamlining burdensome regulations and effectively protecting American intellectual property in the United States and around the globe."

    I'll leave it up to the rest of you to flame McCain for that! I believe that it is also worth mentioning that Obama didn't bring up "regulation" or "protecting intellectual property" at all, especially not in the first paragraph as McCain did.

    • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:51AM (#25011333) Homepage Journal

      Not surprised. McCain's made no secret of his desire to have Steve Ballmer in his cabinet [theinquirer.net]. Ballmer himself probably put those words right in McCain's mouth

      • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flitty (981864) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:58PM (#25012533)
        This quote is probably the most important...

        "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment."

        So, in mccain's view, Comcast has "control" of the pipe, and can do as they see fit. Don't forget that.

        • by holy_calamity (872269) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:08PM (#25012683) Homepage

          "When you control the *tubes* you should be able to get profit from your investment."

          There, fixed that for you.

        • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:36PM (#25013281) Homepage Journal

          This quote is probably the most important

          Never listen to a candidate speak. All politicans are liars. Like the politician in the movie The Hunt for Red October (which ironically had one of the Republican Presidential candidates before McCain sewed it up, former actor Senator Fred Thompson), "Son, I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their candy". (Thompson played a boat captain, not the politician, the line I quote was a different actor)

          Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.

          It looks to me like McCain will be the next President. If so, since he's a Republican following a two term President who completely ruined the economy (like I said in great detail in a slashdot journal, Hoover for President! [slashdot.org],
          the next Herbert Hoover will also be a Republican.

          The similarities I pointed out in that linked journal get scarier every day [yahoo.com].

          The losers in this Presidential race (we have five viable candidates, I'm voting for Barr) will be the real winners.

          I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I fear I'm right.

          Yesterday in a bar, a black man called me a racist because I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate instead of Obama. To a black racist, any white person who votes against Obama is, ironically, a racist. I wonder what he'd have said if I'd said "McKinney" rather than "Barr"? Since neither McKinney nor Barr will win, maybe I should vote for that nutjob McKinney so I can say I voted for "the black woman".

          As I pointed out to the racially-obsessed gentleman, Illinois' electors will be voting for Obama no matter who I vote for. And considering that I believe the next President will be the 21st century Hoover, if Obama wins it will set black people back a generation.

          Neither Republicrat candidate, in my opinion, will be good for us nerds. We're fuX0red, unfortunately.

          • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Angostura (703910) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:33PM (#25014449)

            Thanks for putting this near the top

            All politicans are liars.

            It flagged up that I should be wary about the level of sophistication of the rest of your argument. All politicians are liars is a great sound-bite, and it might be a fashionable sentiment, but there's no evidence that the statement is true. I'm not a politician, and I belong to know political party, but many of the local politicians I've dealt with spend a lot of time dealing with hard, tedious local matters and are in the business of helping the local community. They are not *liars* except to the extent that we all are.

          • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:36PM (#25014507)

            As a bit of explanation, he probably called you a racist because Barr is a notorious bigot. Likewise, many Libertarian Party members are white supremacists using their party line as an excuse for their politics (note how many of them are in favor of repealing the Civil Rights acts, as well as Ron Paul's opposition to the 14th Amendment). Maybe the problem isn't that you weren't voting for Obama, but that you're voting against that guy's human rights?

            • Re:Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

              by k1e0x (1040314) on Monday September 15, 2008 @05:24PM (#25017037) Homepage

              Libertarians on the Civil Rights act have a unique position that is grounded in the philosophy of liberty. It is a complicated thing, but it is quickly described by the party principle statement. "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

              Understanding that, the Civil Rights Act is a use of force. It is force that was used to repeal another forceful law Segregation. In comes the government to the rescue for the problem it created with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this law has unintended consequences as all laws do.

              From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work". He is far smarter than I and describes it better than I ever could.
              ----------
              The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.

              For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains -- and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.

              Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

              But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation -- voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.

              The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.

              Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.

              And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:

              * The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;

              * When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.

              And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.

              In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination -- even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.

              But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?

              To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating -- and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.

              So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating -- by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races -- even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.

              The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it

          • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)

            by scipiodog (1265802) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:12PM (#25015137)

            Rather, look at how they've voted. unfortunately, Obama's a first term Senator and hasn't cast enough votes to get a good picture of where he really stands.

            Au contraire. I think we've been able to see exactly where he stands: in the same place as every other main party politician, when he went back on a very strong promise NOT to vote for any bill that included telco immunity.

            And where is that? A little place I like to call "whateverwheneverwhereverwillgetmeelected."

      • by Tetrad_of_doom (750972) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:48PM (#25013573)
        and what cabinet position would Steve Ballmer have? Secretary of Checking the President's Email?
        McCain at Google [youtube.com]
    • Re:Innovation (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Arthur Dent (76567) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:12PM (#25012781)
      Well, there's no real need to flame - all you have to do is look at the chorus of indignation from artists that had their songs ripped off by the Republicans and used ("pirated"?) without permission. Starting with John Hall sending a cease and desist [msn.com], Van Halen having to say Permission was not sought or granted [tmz.com] and the latest spat with Heart [boston.com] That should tell you right away how much commitment there is to protecting intellectual property.
      • Re:Innovation (Score:5, Informative)

        by Snocone (158524) on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:01PM (#25013831) Homepage

        That should tell you right away how much commitment there is to protecting intellectual property.

        Yes, it should -- 100% complete commitment.

        In all three of the cases you mention, an appropriate ASCAP performance license was obtained by the campaign.

        There is no other legal requirement to perform a song, and there is no form of veto by the recording artist. The bluster in your links is just blowhard preening, there is no legal foundation for it whatsoever.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:50AM (#25011299)

    Come on, are we to believe that the candidates actually wrote their own replies to these questions? I wonder how many people came up with the answers.

    • by jfengel (409917) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:00PM (#25012573) Homepage Journal

      Who cares? Do you really think that the President sits at a desk thinking about the best way forward on DRM? Or that he's singlehandedly an expert on our relations with every country from Egypt to Russia to Bangladesh?

      The President has advisers, who are supposed to be experts in the fields. The President's job is to pick the advisers and get them to work together.

      We're not electing a demigod with supernatural wisdom. The President will be smart, but he's just a guy (or woman, some day). I'd much rather have the collective brain power of his staff working on the solution than getting whatever knowledge he's managed to acquire personally in the short lifespan of a human being.

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:52AM (#25011345) Homepage Journal

    Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.

    Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign) when the geeks ask during a campaign. Then these "Compassionate Conservatives" will just show they were lying once they're past the Election Day "accountability moment", and get the power to drag us all back to the Stone Age.

    • by furball (2853) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:54AM (#25011379) Journal

      But Palin is a hot Creationist. It's like an equation. After hot, you can drop everything else.

      • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:57AM (#25011435) Homepage Journal

        She's not that hot, except compared to McCain and the rest of the politicians we usually see. She's no hotter than my next door neighbor (who's not that hot). Neither of them are qualified to be VP (or president, which is the only mandatory qualification for a VP).

        And Palin's voice actually grates my nerves like the "blackboard fingernails" that everyone says Hillary Clinton has (Clinton's not hot, either).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aka_big_wurm (757512)
        Whatever hotness she has she loses when she opens her mouth.
        • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:35PM (#25012101) Journal

          The first rule of picking up girls: No matter how hot she is, wait for her to speak. If you don't want to hear that at breakfast, toss her to the curb.

          Me? I'm certain I don't want to hear Sarah Palin over breakfast... unless she is congratulating someone else on winning the election instead of her. No matter who is qualified and who is not, the very unfortunate state of the matter is that McSame/Pallid and Obama/whatshisname are the two main contenders. For me, I think they would all ruin a good meal if allowed to talk.

          The problem at hand in this post is the response to technical questions. The only technical question Palin will get right perhaps is what type of gun is best for hunting wolves from a plane.

          I've been reading the comparison at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42 [sciencedebate2008.com] and to be very honest, I'd like to send them a bunch more questions aimed at taking the "and how would you accomplish that in view of xyz" out of their answers. Both sets of answers sound nice but I cannot help but think that since their public appearances do not seem to hold this type of concise informed speech, these answers are typed up by lobbyists and mean absolutely nothing. One thing left out is how they get such actions passed through both houses to make good on their claims? At best, this is political gerrymandering, and at worst it complete bullshit. In either case I have no confidence that either party will pull these rabbits out of the hat.

      • HOT? I think NOT. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MosesJones (55544) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:23PM (#25011871) Homepage

        Seriously the standard of "hotness" is phenomenally low in US politics. We are talking here about someone who came 2nd in Miss Alaska (population 600,000) in a state where less than 50% of the people are female and isn't exactly known as the place where attractive people flock to. Hell this makes her less attractive than the 2nd most attractive person in DETROIT (population over 800k).

        Never before has a media image of what you should think been so quickly accepted by people. Palin isn't hot, she isn't an ugly bird but she isn't a stunner. Lets concentrate on her madly insane political views (abstinence teaching working for you kids Mrs Palin?) and not listen to the media's view of attractive. Put it this way, do you think that Fox News would have her as an anchor? Of course not, a we know that hot is their only real criteria.

        Hot in Alaska? Let put politics first.

        On the other hand look at FRENCH politics if you want seriously hot politicians with incredibly well educated views.

        • by Toonol (1057698) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:13PM (#25012789)
          So you're saying we have ridiculously low standards for calling her hot since she's not more then 2nd in, maybe, 200,000?

          And OUR standards are distorted?

          I consider about 1 woman in 3 to be hot... and I wouldn't want to adopt your standards. I would hate to go months between seeing hot women.
      • by caluml (551744) <{slashdot} {at} {spamgoeshere.calum.org}> on Monday September 15, 2008 @02:15PM (#25014107) Homepage
        What a depressing comment. You're about to vote for the person that could potentially fuck up the world (yet more) for *another* four years, and you're worried about what they look like. I'm British, so I can't vote, but my stupid government still follows some of your more stupid ideas blindly, so we get affected by your decisions.
        Please vote sensibly. Hint: Obama [bbc.co.uk] (In a world poll, "Democrat Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries."). Obama, at least, whatever his other faults/shortcomings doesn't seem like such a warmongering, oil-crazed, stuff-the-rest-of-the-world-we're-alright-Jack sort.

        Yeah, yeah, mod me down - the truth no-doubt hurts.
    • by aproposofwhat (1019098) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:08PM (#25011627)

      Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.

      Does that mean that Palin believes that McCain was carefully buried by God to confuse the evil Darwinists?

    • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:49PM (#25012379)

      Palin is a Creationist [google.com]. McCain is a fossil.

      Of course they'll talk a good science game (after farming that questionnaire out to one of the lobbyist lawfirms that make up their campaign)...

      I think you're painting with too broad of a brush. There are a lot of different forms of Creationism, and they're not all as anti-scientific as you're probably thinking. You're probably against strict creationism, which flat-out rejects evolution. But I think many other Creationists also think strict-creationism is nuts, given the evidence in favor of evolution.

      I think a lot of Creationists are old earth creationists [wikipedia.org]. They basically hold a world view that seeks to make sense of both the fossil record and other beliefs they carry.

      Also, is it possible that some of your anger is a carry-over from Bush's administration's anti-scientific policies? I haven't met a thinking Christian who's down with what Bush has done to science policy in the U.S. But I suspect Bush's policies have nothing to do with Creationist views, and a lot more to do with his utter failure of leadership, morals, ethics, intelligence, and integrity. But that's just my 2 cents as an agnostic.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I just *know* there's a good reason you linked to the hl=ru cache, but for the life of me, I can only think of /. memes.

  • by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Monday September 15, 2008 @11:55AM (#25011391)

    I think he errs when he tries to establish a database connection.

    I think it's a pretty common problem for older guys though.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:01PM (#25011503) Journal
    All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. In the end, I think that we are far better off looking at the candidates voting record AND life. Look at W. He has bankrupted multiple companies; he mismanaged and lied on a number of items PRIOR to running as pres. Clinton, well known womanizer PRIOR to president. reagan, nixon, etc all had their issues before they got president (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).

    What it comes down to, is these ppl already have their behavior in place. Just look at how they acted over the last 5 years and it will give you a better idea of what to expect.
    • by djh101010 (656795) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:22PM (#25011855) Homepage Journal

      All of these kind of things are answered to encourage whatever somebody wants to believe. (BIG SNIP) (reagan ran up monster deficit in CA, and then got out of trouble because JFK started NASA).

      JFK started NASA? Really? I find that somewhat surprising given the dates involved. [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by brkello (642429)
      That's and interesting point. So what would be wrong with Obama? I can't see any flaws which is pretty incredible. McCain is an easy target...but he has a lot more history. He cheated on and left his former swimsuit model wife after she had an accident. Despite being a POW, he votes against anything that would help veterans. He almost failed out of his military academy (he probably did fail, but his father was an uppity up in the military so that got him through). He has a bit of a history like Bush.
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:01PM (#25011511)

    The only way something like this makes sense is if a candidate has to respond on the record in real time. Otherwise, they just farm it out to an underling, who will provide a nice, safe, reasonably accurate series of answers.

    I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy. Even somebody who gets spoon-fed their information has to have enough basic awareness of the subject to know when he's hearing a line of crap from his advisers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I want to know if the candidate himself could pass a grade school science exam before he gets to make calls on science policy.

      It would be nice if our leaders were superhuman and were experts on every facet of policy, but the reality is that no one can be an expert on everything. The point of politicians is *not* for them to personally write laws. You want them be to able to surround themselves with the right experts who will do the dirty work of creating policy.

      So, particularly in this case, having an und

  • by kosanovich (678657) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:03PM (#25011543)
    Question #1: As president what will you do to ensure that our webserver doesn't die a fiery death when this article gets slashdotted?
  • The site (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikesd81 (518581) <.ten.nozirev. .ta. .1dsekim.> on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:05PM (#25011599) Homepage
    does not at all have what McCain feels about science. It's just alot of "according to" or "on this date" or "this Reporter reported" There's absolutely nothing saying where he personally stands.
  • by DnemoniX (31461) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:10PM (#25011669)

    McCain must have had some help with this, we all know he doesn't use computers, doesn't know how to use e-mail and admittedly depends upon his wife for that. Talk about out of touch with the 21st Century. How is he ever supposed to become a Cybernetic Overlord? I mean really!

    Vote Cthulhu 08
    Why vote for a lesser evil when you can vote for a greater one!

  • by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:27PM (#25011961) Journal

    No one believes politicians. Why should anyone believe them? From the city councillor to the President of the Benighted States, there is no punishment for incompetence or lying. If you bribe the right people, there's no punishment for crime, either. A pretty good game to play if you have cash and connections. Make billions for your circle, even if you kill millions of people in a far-away land where they don't even play baseball.

    Political parties are organisms that thrive on cajolery and deception. They pick "leaders" but these leaders are really just pushed to the fore to take the spotlight away from the cunning monkeys behind the curtains writing the speeches and glad-handing the lobbyists. These leaders aren't really meant to change anything profound.

    Civil servants also do their best to survive. Sometimes politicians and civil servants cooperate. Most of the time, it's a null hypothesis. Sometimes, you get a highly-motivated evil cretin in power and other evil cretins join in the convulsions. Then you have efficiency at the expense of freedom, justice, and maybe even life itself.

    Listen to people everywhere speaking today. This is the age of Peter Pan. Everyone's a child, wanting other people to do the work and make the sacrifices and unwilling to grow up. Give me my ear-pod and home theatre with a screen full of high-definition retardation and don't ask me to learn about the world. Then I can spend all my time talking with my idiotic friends about about which plastic Hollywood dolls we would fuck if we had the opportunity... when we win the lottery.

    And when we tire of that desperate chain of infantile hope and outright stupidity, we post on Slashdot. (o:

    • by db32 (862117) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:40PM (#25012197) Journal
      Let me shorten that up for you. This is hardly a new issue.

      ... iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses. ... (Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81)

      Translation:
      ... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions -- everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
  • Horizon (Score:3, Informative)

    by BigBadBus (653823) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:34PM (#25012083) Homepage
    The BBC science show Horizon is running a show tomorrow night in the UK about what the Presidential candidates think of science and what their policies are. Doesn't bode well since I found out that Palin is a creationist.
  • Pointed Hypocrasy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gat0r30y (957941) on Monday September 15, 2008 @12:44PM (#25012291) Homepage Journal

    Sex Education In a 2007 interview, Senator McCain said that sex education in the United States should follow President Bush's policy of abstinence-only education. HIV/AIDS McCain participated in ONE campaign's On The Record project. See Youtube (below). In a statement released by his campaign on Global Aids Day (December 1, 2007), McCain supported maintaining the United States commitment to fighting AIDS, writing: "It's critical that we face this crisis head-on, which is why I have consistently supported the most aggressive global AIDS program in the history of this pandemic, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Afflicted nations with whom we partner to fight this disease must also know that we expect a level of governance, transparency and effectiveness from them in order to make the fullest use of AIDS assistance so we can make the greatest impact on people's lives. Our commitment must be sustained, and our nation must always be faithful to those at home and abroad as they cope with the ravages of HIV/AIDS."[3]

    Wouldn't fighting AIDS be easier if people where at least aware that Condoms can be used to prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS? Isn't prevention much less expensive than treatment? Wouldn't any real effort to fight AIDS include more than "abstinence only" education? This is absurd. How could anyone take such a candidate seriously?

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:23PM (#25012989) Journal

      Those that like to make-believe that kids don't have sex, or that somehow hellfire-and-damnation sermons and that being taught "don't put your hoo-hoo in her woo-woo" will convince them otherwise.

      It's little wonder that the Bible Belt is also the teen pregnancy belt, or that the arch-conservative VP candidate for the Republicans now has a pregnant teenager in her own ranks. Of course, in classic hypocritical Fundie form, that's a blessing from God. If Palin's kid was a some inner city teenager, then it would be about how immoral she is.

      Religious conservatives are pathetic hypocrites, and abstinence-only education is the immoral outgrowth of their inability to deal with reality.

  • Stem Cell Research (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday September 15, 2008 @01:44PM (#25013475)

    In the interests of giving McCain props where I think he should get them (even though I don't agree with him on most subjects):

    Question: Senator, embryonic stem cell federal funding.

    McCain: I want to thank Mrs. Reagan for the many kindnesses extended to me many -- and my fellow prisoners of war many years ago when we came home to this wonderful state. I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

    Kudos to McCain for correctly identifying the glaring hole in the pro-life argument against embryonic stem cell research. The pro-life crowd will often argue that the embryos that stem cells are harvested from are humans and thus deserve a better fate than being used for research. They ignore the reality of the situation, however. Those frozen embryos are most likely going to be discarded/incinerated if they aren't used for stem cell research.

    Which is a more dignified fate for the embryo? To be incinerated/tossed out like trashed? Or to be used in an attempt to save lives?

  • by lakshmanok (1208090) on Monday September 15, 2008 @03:31PM (#25015435) Homepage
    There are serious differences in the world-view between the two candidates.

    Two examples:

    (1) Obama wants to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education by broadening its scope beyond just science and engineering majors:

    All American citizens need high quality STEM education that inspires them to know more about the world around them, engages them in exploring challenging questions, and involves them in high quality intellectual work. STEM education is no longer only for those pursuing STEM careers; it should enable all citizens to solve problems, collaborate, weigh evidence, and communicate ideas.

    whereas McCain sees science as being for geeks only. He wants more geeks, so the rest of the country don't have to bother their pretty heads while getting law and business degrees:

    The diminishing number of science, technology, engineering and math graduates at the college level poses a fundamental and immediate threat to American competitiveness. We must fill the pipeline to our colleges and universities with students prepared for the rigors of advanced engineering, math, science and technology degrees.

    (2) Obama sees technology leadership as being essential to national security:

    It's essential to create a coherent new defense technology strategy to meet the kinds of threats we may faceâ"asymmetric conflicts, urban operations, peacekeeping missions, and cyber, bio, and proliferation threats, as well as new kinds of symmetric threats.

    whereas McCain sees national security as essentially just military superiority:

    As President, I will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

    For more contrasts, see my blog post [blogspot.com]

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Monday September 15, 2008 @04:58PM (#25016707) Homepage Journal

    Carly Fiorina severly damaged Hewlett-Packard [wikipedia.org] as its CEO, and has been campaigning for McCain ever since HP fired her.

    With that kind of endorsement, America's tech industry should fear McCain as Fiorina's choice for president.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...