Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Science

Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online 96

Posted by timothy from the why-not-just-seal-off-the-building dept.
Buzz Skyline writes "Several groups representing the nation's scientists, engineers, and doctors are inviting presidential candidates Kerry and Bush to participate in a "Virtual Town Hall" meeting, according to an Associated Press article that appeared in USA Today. Planned topics include stem cell research policy and technical research funding. More information is available at HiTechTownHall.org. Kerry's people say he is eager to take part, but Bush has yet to respond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online More

Scientists Invite Kerry And Bush To Chat Online

Comments Filter:
  • Here's a surprise... ;-)
    • Two things are really stupid.

      1. Bush won't do it because he is afraid of typing and mispelling a word. He doesn't want to make Potatoe a republican thing.

      2.Bush is probably stupid enough to think that he couldn't have someone actually type for him.

  • Likely outcome (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @03:52PM (#10072280) Homepage Journal
    If it does happen, which I doubt, I would take the entire conversation with a grain of salt. Hopefully the entire thing is videotaped on both ends. Otherwise, that wonderful anonymity we all enjoy could let Professor DNC or Doctor GOP do the talking for either candidate.
    • Otherwise, that wonderful anonymity we all enjoy could let Professor DNC or Doctor GOP do the talking for either candidate.

      But not very unusual.

      During the Presidential Debates, the questions will be given out beforehand so that the Professor and Doctor can train the candidates on the correct answers, correct posture, correct voice inflections, etc.

      We wouldn't want either candidate to accidently say anything unscripted now, would we?
      • Indeed! It's task enough to keep all those other 'candidates' away from the debates. Idiots thinking 'democracy' means something where everyone can run for office and have their cause heard.
      • During the Presidential Debates, the questions will be given out beforehand so that the Professor and Doctor can train the candidates on the correct answers, correct posture, correct voice inflections, etc.

        How the fuck is this flamebait? It's obviously true. Mods on crack...

  • disingenuous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigChigger ( 551094 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @03:56PM (#10072314)
    It's not quite fair to say Kerry's "people" have agreed, but Bush himself has not. You've already displayed that this apparently is not a discourse about issues, but an ambush (pardon the pun ;-) to attack GWB. If I were GWB, I would not participate either. Besides, unlike most of the yahoos reading this board, GWB has a job.

    BC

  • Bush won't be the one online, in any case (Score:4, Insightful)

    by js7a ( 579872 ) <james.bovik@org> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @03:57PM (#10072322) Homepage Journal
    The whitehouse.gov webbaster has stated that the only person who has ever typed his own replies to "Ask The White House" questions is Treasury Secretary Snow. (Remember, the guy who "staked his reputation on job growth by Christmas" a year ago?) Everyone else has dictated answers to an assistant.

  • Badnarik??? Nader??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mshiltonj ( 220311 ) <mshiltonj@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @03:59PM (#10072334) Homepage Journal
    Did they invite Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org]? Why not? He will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states, plus DC. He's polling 4-5% in some states.
    • Do they ever? With all this talk about campaign finance reform what I feel is a much more important election reform is entirely ignored. The Democrats and Republicans have all but locked out any other parties from having an effective voice.
    • He's polling 4-5% when the polling is done by his people. The question they ask is, "If the election were held today, would you vote for John Kerry, George W. Bush, or Michael Badnarik?" Needless to say, the numbers are a bit soft.

    • Re:Badnarik??? Nader??? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:48PM (#10073218)
      Calm down. All third parties need to do to gain access to the electoral system is:

      1) petition each state with a simple signature count of 300% of the state population
      2) to include the recently formed state of Atlantis
      3) provide a simple proof that your great^4 grandfather was a citizen of the united states, ate only the chocolate portion of neopolitan ice cream, and owned exactly 2 dogs.
      4) lift 3 times your body [politic] weight over your head
      5) demonstrate faster than light travel

      That's 6 [1] easy steps! Come on, stop whining.

      [1] 6th step omitted, file a simple FOIA request to obtain it
    • Because he's not likely to win. Nader's not likely to win anything either. I know how much that hurts libertarians, but then they're so pissed off all the time anyway I don't think anyone'll notice. ;)
      • Because he's not likely to win.

        I fail to see how that's relevant in this case. I don't cast my vote or make my decision based on who's likely to win. I cast my vote on who I think best represents by views. Who wins the election may be a popularity contest, but who gets *my* vote is not. I'm not alone in this.

        If Badnarik is not even asked the same questions as the two governmentarians, the how can voters possibly be informed of their options?
        • With our electorial system, there is little reason to vote for someone who isn't going to win. It's not even a good way to express a viewpoint that will be taken seriously.

          The current system causes the debate to focus on a few issues that frankly aren't very important except to distract from those that do matter. I don't expect the most important issue of election reform to ever be seriously debated by to dominant partiies. It works just fine (for them) the way it is.

          The best way to get Libertarian viewp

    • Almost all the states and 5% of the electorate, that's quite an achievement considering the hurdles placed in their way.

      As it is, when the Democrats and the Republicans are close, the voter has more reason to vote for one of them than to vote for who he really wants. This suits the Demos and the Repubs just fine so we won't get a change unless a third party candidate makes reform of the electorial system a major compaign issue.

  • Too bad that neither of the candidsted have the balls to tke them up on it.

  • bush? (Score:4, Funny)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @04:01PM (#10072350) Homepage
    why invite bush? what would he have to say at a discussion on science?

    • Re:bush? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by daeley ( 126313 ) *
      Something like: "I'm a firm supporter of science and science funding for science. I mean, how else are we going to find the oil and build better weapons?" ;)

      • Re:bush? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by linzeal ( 197905 )
        I hardly think he is capable of that level of abstraction after hearing his state of the union addresses and comparing them to more off the cuff interviews the man is obviously of substandard intelligence. He has granted what 3 whole interviews since taking office? I believe all of them having to have their answers pre-screened.

    • Re:bush? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Experiment 626 ( 698257 )

      Certainly a lot more than Kerry. Look for science related articles on both of their campaign sites. Kerry's says nothing at all of substance. The first point he talks about is how he would use tax breaks to "create a business environment that encourages investment". Imagine how wild the anti-business trolls would go if Bush lead off that way. Kerry's science and technology platforms highlight how he would bring broadband to "every corner of America". Like I use my 1.5mbps for conducting scientific exp

      • Perhaps Kerry doesn't mention his Senatorial record because he is too busy defending against Republican smears on his war record.

      • Re:bush? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by toddt ( 731370 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @02:30AM (#10076065)
        Looking at the campaign web pages is hardly the best way to evaluate the Bush science record.

        Bush has a reliable record of squelching good science in favor of his chosen industries/religious beliefs.

        For example, his administration has overruled his own EPA on recommended arsenic levels/clean air regulations, et cetera. His administration has intentionally suppressed independent expert research on global warming. Why? Occam's razor might suggest it has something to do with the MASSIVE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS made by the polluting industries.

        Complicated subjects? Sure. But the subversion of science to political goals is what has many independent scientists irritated with the administration. Science is supposed to be intellectually free research, not dictated from the president.

        Finally, your line about stem cell research is just asinine. People who want embryonic (NOT FETAL, thus no abortion, you asshat) stem cell lines aren't advocating abortion, they're advocating the pursuit of lines of research that could lead to some of the most significant advances on critical illness that we've ever seen. Ever.

        Suppressing that simply to cater to the Christian Right, most of whom wouldn't know science if it bit them in the ass, is simply wrong. Intellectually and morally.

        Look, I'm not pleased with Kerry. But I'll be voting Anyone But Bush on election day, simply because I'd like to see independent science back in action.

      • Re:bush? (Score:4, Informative)

        by write_with_numbers ( 779746 ) on Thursday August 26, 2004 @07:49AM (#10076933)
        Try reading the book of platform ideas Kerry had published. Then remember that Bush's highest level technology advisor has a B.S. in Biology and zero days in a tech sector job. Try reading the facts and figures from the Union of Concerned Scientists. This non-partisan group, whose report has been signed by 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, has determined that the Bush administration has made more decisions in opposition to good scientific data than any other administration in history.

        When looking for facts and figures to back up your argument, I suggest you go to a source that is controlled by neither party.

        "And unlike Kerry, Bush mentions specific areas: space exploration, nanotechnology, hydrogen power, fusion, etc."

        With no shuttles launching, how is he putting money into space exploration? With our access to new oil reserves in Iraq, it has been at least a year and a half since Bush has even mentioned hydrogen power (although he did once proclaim that his administration would focus on hydrogen to make us energy independant). All Slashdot readers should know that recently the U.S. fusion program was cancelled. Besides, when you deny the No Child Left Behind Act nearly 40% of the funding you promised, how can you expect there to be future scientists to work on these breakthroughs?

        Read the Kerry/Edwards platform book. There are some very interesting ideas on how to find funding for the important scientific and environmental projects that this administration has routinely ignored.

        Or just go to http://www.ucsusa.org/ and look for the report on the Bush administration published in Febuary of this year and updated to include more troubling facts recently.
        • Kerry's technology PDF is pretty good, but his website page on Technology reminds me of the following item from the West Wing:
          "The reason I would run, were I to run, is I have a great belief in this country as a country, and in this people as a people, that go into making this country a nation with the greatest natural resources and people, educated people.
          We have the greatest technolgy of any people of any country in the world along with the greatest--not the greatest, but very serious problems confrontin
          • Sorry my sig didn't stand up to yours, but there are just so many dumb and frightening W quotes that I don't have time to sort through all of them. I do think its funny though that on dubyaspeak.com the "15 most recent dumb quotes" you never see one older than two weeks or so. Oh wait, there are exceptions when he goes on vacation for weeks at a time. After all, even with the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, and a dismal economy, Bush has taken more vacation time than any other president in history.

            Not t

  • Is this thing on? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian AT wylfing DOT net> on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @04:27PM (#10072582) Homepage Journal
    I clicked on this topic because I was absolutely positively sure I would see some +5 Funnies. I mean, come on. George W. Bush and science. There's gotta be a joke there.

  • The whole thing is a joke. Here, let me sum up the big question that will be posed to both candidates:

    "Fuck everyone else. Which one of you candidates will pledge to funnel more money to scientists?"

    This would be the equivilant to attending a forum by any focus group. The intent is to get a bigger committment to that focus groups interests (and that always means more money). Doesn't matter if it's business, education, science, the military, whatever.

    So they should just ask the candidate "Who promises to
    • Point taken - a big part of the discussion would certainly be about getting more money (and freedom) for science. Another big part of it, I think, would have to center around demonstrating (as humorously as possible) excactly how uninformed, uneducated, and underintelligent Bush is.

      The word Science can represent the "focus group" that you're talking about - mostly in the form of government-funded research, in this case - but it can also represent a process by which we grow our understanding of the univer

  • He might talk about his feelings on stem cell research in front of a crowd or with religious leaders, but why would Bush volunteer to talk to scientists about it? It would be like talking down affirmative action at a NACCP convention.

  • This could get interesting! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FlyingOrca ( 747207 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:02PM (#10072846) Journal
    Given GWB's known propensity for junk science (most on Slashdot are familiar with the two "letters of concern" his administration has received from a coalition of top US scientists, right?), I wouldn't be surprised if he ducks this.

    If he agrees to take part, though, I expect there will be some pretty tough questions... and although I don't live in the States anymore, I'd sure like to follow the exchange. The sad thing about such a Q&A, though, is that most people are so science-illiterate that (a) they won't care, recognise its significance, or follow it; and (b) they probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway.

    Which is a pity, because the whole election mess could use some more rationality - at least from my perspective across the border. Cheers!

    (Disclaimer: I'm a US citizen by birth, Canadian by naturalisation, and thinking seriously of voting in this US election - which would be a first.)
    • Definition of Junk science: Science which disagrees with my politics.
      • I realize that you're probably either joking or trolling, but nonetheless I should clarify what I wrote. In fact, you've correctly identified the malady - but the patient is Dubya's administration.

        Simply put, science is not - in itself - political. Scientists may be political, but science is just an idea (well, lots of them, including some really big ones we call theories, but you probably know what I mean) of how the universe works. That's it, that's all.

        There are of course disagreements between scientis
  • Bush: Lets talk strategery
    Kerry: STFU N00b I'll pwn y0u in naaahhm!
    Bush: Don't make me go Halliburton on your ass. ...
    .
    . ..
    .
    As if either of these guys are in touch with reality. All you're gonna get is canned answers from the campaign droids.

  • How it might go (Score:3, Funny)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Wednesday August 25, 2004 @05:57PM (#10073307) Journal
    I'm a Conservative, but here goes:

    Kerry2004 is online...
    [Kerry2004]Guess I'm here a bit early.
    [Kerry2004]....
    [Kerry2004]Sure is quiet. Reminds me of Nam. I fought there, you know. Won 3 Pur--
    Bush2004 is online...
    [Bush2004]whoa! so this is the internet huh
    [Kerry2004]Hello, Mr. President.
    [Bush2004]howdy howdy
    [Kerry2004]I was just telling everybody about the 4 med--
    [Bush2004]hey john, how do you spell 'seneter'?
    [Bush2004]never mind johns all right isnt it?
    [Bush2004]you went to Veitnam didnt you john? were you in the shit?
    [Kerry2004]Senator Kerry. Yes I was "in the shit." In fact, I won 5--
    [Bush2004]bet that stunk! lololol
    [Bush2004]so n-e-way lets get sireis about forein policy for a bit. what do you think about nuking Canada?
    [Kerry2004]That's insane! You're joking, right? I would like to assure everyone that if you elect me instead of this nutcase, we will get America back on the track of a rational foreign policy. I think that my character has been proven by the 6--
    [Bush2004]uh...i got to go make a phone call
    [Bush2004]damn it, the neos said that it would impress everyone with my leadership.
    Bush2004 has quit (Abort! Abort!)

    • Re:How it might go (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 )
      I'm a Conservative

      I'm a Conservative also. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not. He stands for expanded government regulation, fiscal irresponsibility, nation building, and special interests. All non-conservative positions.
      • Not to mention mass imigration and racial preferences. I'm with you.
        • Not to mention mass imigration

          Yeah I mean, let's just bring the immigrants in by the truckload if they want to come. And if they don't want to come we'll just give them the jobs of American workers so they're still happy. Does Mr. Bush think he is the President of the world, or does he just feel that he needs to give equal benefits to US citizens AND non-citizens.
    • At least *TRY* to make it believable, huh? Like Bush could understand "lol", much less use it properly.

      -
  • /me thinks that R. Nader would be more than welcome to participate in this discussion, and he probably wouldn't have to have his answers screened before hand
  • Kerry may want a more open debate of this type, but Bush has politicized science enough that I don't think he would enjoy the forum. The truth, though, is that I have seen both parties politicize science. In any case, there are mechanisms in place that make it unlikely that a more open debate of this type does not occur. Take a look at http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/exclusionofiss ue.html [opendebates.org].
  • That's a no-brainer. People with brains would never vote for Bush and he knows it. Why would he embarrass himself?

    SG
    • >People with brains would never vote for Bush

      Unfortunately, I know some very smart people who will vote for Bush. Some of them have picked a specific issue (e.g. gun control) and ignore all the other issues. Others simply live in a delusional dreamland where Fox News is Fair and Balanced and all Republicans are "good guys" simply because they are Republicans. At least one is just an intolerant, homophobic, racist a**-hole, and knows "W" is with him all the way.
  • Hell he can't even spell the word scientist without making errors. Asking him to talk about Stem Cell Research and other issues is like asking the Neanderthal Man to talk about Tesla Power Coils.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can now buy more gates with less specifications than at any other time in history. -- Kenneth Parker

Close