A Call For Science Policy Debate Among Presidential Candidates 375
Marissa Fessenden writes about a campaign to get Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to address important scientific issues in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election. ScienceDebate.org and Scientific American have posed a set of questions to the candidates, as well as congressional leaders, and they're rallying support for those questions to be answered before the election. The responses will be published and graded for citizens to see. The questions include topics such as biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy. This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? One can't talk or think without the teleprompter and other will quote the Old Testament.
Which is why it becomes important to determine(admittedly by way of various imperfect proxy measures) what their chosen science minions will do for them...
While it might be an interesting change of pace to elect a scientist rather than a lawyer or executive, that seems unlikely. However, even the personally-dimmest are going to end up making choices about the sort of 'expertise' they choose to cultivate around themselves, and we'll likely see a few differences in that advisory group.
Science?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Which is why it becomes important to determine(admittedly by way of various imperfect proxy measures) what their chosen science minions will do for them...
What's with all that sciency guff?
I want a candidate with character, morals, one who represents my beliefs on abortion and on the deficit and whether or not we should reduce spending or increase taxes. Because the other side is too stupid and ignorant to represent this country and steer it in the right direction! The other side has the wrong values and they are just going to drive this country into the toilet!!
We don't need no science debate! That's just for eggheads! Why the Chinese leadership is made up a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's with all that sciency guff?
I want a candidate with character, morals, one who represents my beliefs on abortion and on the deficit and whether or not we should reduce spending or increase taxes.
To be honest that's probably the kind of thinking you should be engaing in.
Good scientists make terrible leaders, as they either tend to believe themselves to be experts in everything despite only knowing much about the migration habits of snow geese, or being so balanced and equivocal (ie scientific) about every issue that they will never be able to make a decision.
Re:Science?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad scientists (and lots of other bad people) also tend to believe they know everything and should be empowered to enforce their will on others. In fact, that's the #1 characteristic I look for in a politician. Then I vote against him.
Re: (Score:2)
Did I miss something? Are we asking Obama and Romney to become scientists?
I thought they were just being asked their position on science, is it better we don't know their positions?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? And just how many scientists do that? I'm sure you can come up with the standard examples (Hubble, Penrose) but since you have tarred the majority of scientists with that brush, time to back it up, I want to know the percentage of scientists whoa assume they are experts in fields not related to their area of expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? And just how many scientists do that? I'm sure you can come up with the standard examples (Hubble, Penrose) but since you have tarred the majority of scientists with that brush, time to back it up, I want to know the percentage of scientists whoa assume they are experts in fields not related to their area of expertise.
Kind of like how you tarred engineers with one brush?
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3064031&cid=41080885 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it might be an interesting change of pace to elect a scientist rather than a lawyer or executive, that seems unlikely.
You may be surprised how many politicians, lawyers, and executives have a BSc or better under their belt. For example the Iron Lady was a chemist trained at Oxford, her scientific training probably helped her to become one of the first world leaders to call for action on AGW in the 80's...OTOH...the Iron Lady did have other ideas in other areas, more than a few of those policies can be used to demonstrate that technocrats have shitty policy ideas just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
Europe is different. In Europe they put people like Gauss on their money, and elect people like Thatcher and Merkel (also a chemist) to positions of power.
Here in the US, we have different attitudes about what sorts of things constitute "qualifications".
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
While it might be an interesting change of pace to elect a scientist rather than a lawyer or executive...
You can say that again. Just think of the knowledge we could learn with proper experimentation. 1: Experimental control: do not launch a nuclear strike against large semi-communistic nuclear armed country. 2: Test Case: Do launch a nuclear strike against a large semi-communistic nuclear armed country.
Just think of how much fun the statisticians could have with a scientist as president!
Actually, I think evidenced based policy with periodic refinement would be an excellent way to run a country. You nee
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though I agree with 1/2 of this, someone bringing up "teleprompter" deserves all communications flushed down the memory hole.
Because Science Debate is AWESOME. That's Why. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Science Debate is the greatest thing to happen to those of interested in science and politics. When they got Obama and McCain [sciencedebate.org] to answer science questions in the 2008 election, I immediately cancelled my membership to the Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org] and started donating to this grassroots organization.
I have one issue that I vote on, and that's science. It's the only issue I understand well enough to evaluate the candidates on. If they know their science or have advisors that understand science, then I will trust them with most everything else. I summarized Obama's 2008 responses here [ideonexus.com], McCain's here [ideonexus.com], and my calls for who won on each issue [ideonexus.com]. Obama's responses won on most issues, but McCain did not do poorly. Since Obama has taken office, he has impressed me with his support of science with Data.gov [data.gov], Science.gov [science.gov], a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity [whitehouse.gov], proposed major increases in science funding [washingtonpost.com], and put the Office of Science and Technology Policy [whitehouse.gov] back in the Whitehouse.
These might seem like small accomplishments, but compared to the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration [wikipedia.org] they were a breath of fresh air. Unless Romney answers the science debate questions this election cycle, I won't even consider him.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
One can't talk or think without the teleprompter ...
Oh please, will you Fox News-watching nuts give it a fucking rest? Reagan used a teleprompter. Bush used a teleprompter. Clinton used a teleprompter. Bush II used a teleprompter. Did you not see Obama in his QA session with republicans in 2010? He answered every one of their questions point for point, not a teleprompter in sight. Watch [dailykos.com]. Could you imagine Dubya having a grasp of the issues and being able to think on his feet like that?
Loaded questions? Sort of. (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans will see the list of suggested topics ("biosecurity, climate change, the safety of food and water supplies, vaccination, and environmentally sustainable energy") as unfair and biased toward the Democrats' agenda. However, this says more about the Republican party's interest in science than it does about ScienceDebate.org's political bias.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Each of those topics is relevant to Republicans and they take an active interest in it. The disagreement is how each of these topics are addressed.
Pretty much the Left would argue for an absolutist policy based on the current popular science. So they would shut down all the coal fueled power plants, outlaw gasoline vehicles, have mandatory vaccinations, and who knows what oppressive crap they would come up with in the name of food and water safety.
Republicans would look at each issue and weigh the cost vs.
Re:Loaded questions? Sort of. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know any non-kooks who want to completely ban fossil fuels. Most want either to say "no burning fossil fuel without a permit" and issue permits equal to a desired level of emissions, or implement a carbon tax tuned to reduce emissions to that level.
As for vaccinations: yes, they should be mandatory. No religious whackjob exceptions or crystal-clutching hippie exceptions. Go read about the polio epidemic and you'll understand why. Possibly there can be one exception: a parent puts up a bond for the cost of getting their kid tested for the presence of polio/measles/whatever every couple of months, and if the kid tests positive at any time then parent goes to jail for assault against both the kid and whoever the kid may have infected.
Again, nobody on the Left wants to outlaw water treatment plants, either, given that they're rather fond of building the things in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea is that they're not like a "permit" to have a gun or whatever, but are permits that are for sale for a certain price, and that can be bought and sold on the market without going through the government.
I don't like that idea as much as the carbon tax, though, simply because it's simpler. (Most carbon tax proposals include tax cuts elsewhere to stay revenue-neutral.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, they've even argued against the idea of compromise.
For economic conservatives, we have good reason to resist further "compromise". We want to cut spending, Democrats want to increase spending. A fair compromise would mean keeping current spending levels (adjusting for inflation). Instead every budget compromise has been to increase spending, but just not as much as the Democrats wanted.
Or worse, we get a situation where Republicans say they want to cut taxes and decrease spending while Democrats say they want to raise taxes and increase spending. So
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they would choose topics that are points of contention between the parties. If Republicans see that as bias, maybe they're not as confident about their positions as they pretend to be.
Re: (Score:2)
They are important questions, but they aren't related to science. This bias strengthens the anti-science attitude. Science should focus on the pursuit of knowledge not on daily politics.
Not loaded - pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change is a stupid question to bring up, regardless on where you fall on the issue. America has already lowered carbon emissions a great deal, if you're that worried about it talk to the rest of the world.
"environmentally sustainable energy" is equal silly, since the answer is simply "nuclear power" and letting the market bring forth efficient solar options at its own pace (wind is not now, nor ever has been a good alternative energy source).
As to "safety of food and water supplies, vaccination" -
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with wind? Hook it up to pumped-storage hydro and you have reliable energy. It's cost-competitive too. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Wind power has historically always been dumped eventually, leaving rotting wind farms dotting the nation. When you say it's cost-competitive, I really doubt that is taking into account long-term maintenance, or the real costs of building the systems without heavy subsidization. The DOE is hardly a neutral source on the matter since they are pushing wind power like mad.
You also note that you can simply hook it up to pumped-storage hydro - but that means you are using a significant quantity of water and fur
Re: (Score:2)
The lowering of U.S. emissions is largely due to slowdowns in the economy and a gradual shift from coal to natural gas. Neither of those trends are sufficient in the long term, and we still emit roughly twice the emissions per capita and per GDP compared to Europe. Are you suggesting that there
Debate about where control should exist. (Score:3)
Here is what I would love to see.
I big grid with specific topics for the rows.
Then have the following columns titles. Federal, State, County, City, Family, Individual.
For each topic the candidate has to put where they think that control should exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For children yes, and Conservative Christians would also lump women in with that.
Re: (Score:2)
How many families actually exist in the U.S. where the woman stays home barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen while the man works?
How many women (in the US) are actually denied jobs or education because they are women?
How many conservative, christian families (in the US) have women who bow to the every whim of their husband?
You are making up crap because you have been conditioned to beleive that concervative christians are evil and hate women. Open your eyes and actually look around at your friends and neig
Re:Debate about where control should exist. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you need to travel into the rural areas more often.
I have relatives that fit every single one of these questions. I agree they are a minority, but they exist and the Republicans cater to their every whim.
Re: (Score:2)
I was only ever talking about a minority.
I am not sure why you think I meant all rural folks are like that.
Specifically Rural Conservative Christians are the only set of folks I was talking about. I was not generalizing about anyone else. I never spoke about anyone else.
This small set of folks does this and they are catered to by the republican party.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a difference between family and individual?
Yes. For instance, should a woman be able to get an abortion without her husband's permission? Since Roe-vs-Wade, the answer is "yes", but before RvW the answer was "no" in many states.
Better yet: debate among voters about voting (Score:2)
I would love that debate (yes, even more than the science one) but just like answering science policy questions, it raises the same issue: what's in it for them? Why would a candidate share their opinions on these matters?
We only punish them for speaking their minds. And we never EVER punish them for being silent. Even Romney is likely to get somewhere around 50% of the vote, give or take 5%.
Our candidates aren't the problem; we are. Because 99% of us vote for whatever they (the two biggest parties) put
Controlling your life in the name of [science] (Score:4, Insightful)
Group of people interested in [science] want a debate about extending government control over your life in the name of [science].
Replace [science] with religion, health, nutrition, education, morals, national security, the environment, commerce, or any other issue you want. It's all essentially the same. The answers should be the same too: "No, we'll make our own choices."
There's no need for any special debates for [science].
Re:Controlling your life in the name of [science] (Score:5, Insightful)
The attack by conservatives on science and reason has nothing to do with "control over your life". It's quite the opposite, in fact. Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
And before conservatives complain about government abridging their freedoms, they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
Once you defeat the idea of rational governance, you're free to exercise power in a completely arbitrary way, in response to the needs of your corporate patrons or any whim at all. Total power is not constrained by the requirement of rational justification.
Once you decide it's OK to exercise power over people based on some arbitrary rationale, you can shape the rationale to provide whatever powers fit your whims.
Rational justification does not constrain. Rational arguments can be made for or against any action or policy. And they're all amazingly persuasive after you've already decided what you want to do.
Lack of government power over people constrains the exercise of government power over people. When there are no enforcers, force is unavailable as an opt
There is no attack on science or reason (Score:3)
The attack by conservatives on science and reason
Bullshit. There are some crazy Republicans - but also equally crazy Democrats, against food irradiation, or nuclear power.
There's nothing conservative about an attack on science.
they should reflect on the long list of groups (women, gays, non-christians, etc. etc.) that they deem undeserving of the same consideration.
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democra
Re:There is no attack on science or reason (Score:4, Interesting)
It's funny you should mention that since it is conservative groups that ended segregation, and supported suffragettes. Through history Democrats have long been the party to resist real progress, and very little has changed.
You're really going to have to elaborate on that gem a little. Conservatives as advocates for the downtrodden and disenfranchised. If they were the real champions of progressive values, wouldn't they, ummm, not be conservatives anymore? Or is this yet another shining example of their prodigious talent for turning reality upside-down?
Re: (Score:3)
This problem is always framed to say "If the government doesn't regulate it then horrible stuff will happen."
You don't read much history, do you? Environmental regulations, banking regulations, etc are almost always instituted because horrible stuff has already happened. Sarbines-Oxley or whatever it's called was enacted because the banks recklessly destroyed the economy in the 1920s. The neocons screaming "deregulate!" got it overturned, and what happened? The banks recklessly destroyed the economy again i
Re: (Score:3)
People making their own choices often make very bad choices, and the consequences of those choices affect others. Government control is a means of making those choices by (ideally) popular choice, so that if bad choices are made, it's because the majority of us wanted it that way.
Of course, the system is flawed in that politicians are now package deals, so a popular choice in one field means a you're stuck with an unpopular choice elsewhere. That's still no reason to abandon the system, but rather a reason
Re: (Score:3)
People making their own choices often make very bad choices, and the consequences of those choices affect others. Government control is a means of making those choices by (ideally) popular choice, so that if bad choices are made, it's because the majority of us wanted it that way.
Like when the two wolves and the lamb voted on what to eat for dinner. The lamb wanted to make a very bad choice. But another choice was made by the majority. They took what they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
And two thirds of the population were well-fed, while one third died.
The alternative was that two thirds of the population starved while one third watched.
It seems popular choice is the ethical one here. Or am I supposed to be swayed by the emotional appeal of the lamb?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you're doing just fine representing your beliefs. Everyone can be fat and secure in your society as long as they never lose a single election. Every vote is a life-or-death struggle for survival against a ravenous, remorseless enemy. Choose your side carefully.
I'd ask this question: (Score:5, Insightful)
How about implementing safer forms of nuclear power?
Such a technology does exist: the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a prototype of which was tested in the 1960's and early 1970's at Oak Ridge National Laboratory with very promising results for power generation but was discontinued because it couldn't generate uranium-235 and plutonium-239 needed for nuclear weapons production.
There are numerous advantages to LFTR nuclear power plants, as I've mentioned in other posts in the recent past. And it uses thorium-232, which is quite abundant in nature, so finding it is not an issue. (Indeed, China wants this technology because they can't figure out what to do with all that thorium ore dug out as part of China's extensive rare Earth mining program.)
Wind and solar power may be nice, but large installations of wind turbines could pose a major hazard to birds and most large-scale solar power array installations take up huge swaths of land. Meanwhile, a modern LFTR using Brayton turbines to generate power takes up a very small amount of land just to generate 500 to 1,000 MW, which means very cheap construction costs.
Re:I'd ask this question: (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Office buildings kill far more birds than wind farms, you never hear anyone mentioning that. Solar can take up huge swaths of land, we have it empty. What are your plans for our deserts?
LFTR might do all of what you suggest, but no one knows that. First we need to build one in 2012 not 1970. Then we need to study it. I strongly support doing that, I do not support using bullshit against other forms of power.
For all we know there are major problems with LFTR that have not yet been found, lets be realistic about this. We should try it, but not pretend like it is some magic unicorn.
Re: (Score:2)
There are far more office buildings than wind power generators. Deserts are as much a part of the environment as non-deserts; I only support solar installation on roofs.
How about letting the deserts LIVE? (Score:2)
Bullshit. Office buildings kill far more birds than wind farms, you never hear anyone mentioning that.
Primarily because it's not true. Office buildings in fact provide habitat for raptors...
Solar can take up huge swaths of land, we have it empty. What are your plans for our deserts?
How about we let the deserts live? I think it hilarious that people criticize conservatives as being anti-environment when YOU would casually destroy miles of the most fragile eco-system that exists. There is a LOT of life in
Re: (Score:2)
Glass sided office buildings kill untold numbers of birds. Walk around any of them you will find the small birds that smashed into them.
I never said I was pro-environment. I am pro my environment. Since I do not live in a desert, pave it with solar cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Walk around any of them you will find the small birds that smashed into them.
I can honestly say I have not once seen that in any major city I have ever visited, or in the city I live in.
How do you know the birds did not meet ends by other means? Cats, cars, etc. are all forces that can kill just as easily.
In the end though the argument is stupid, because people have to have buildings but we do not have to have wind farms.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4134773/ns/us_news-environment/t/plate-glass-blamed-billion-bird-deaths-year/#.UDT4eBrxj9Q [msn.com]
We do not have to have plate glass sided skyscrapers. We could use a difference material, or mark the glass in some way.
I am actually not suggesting we do, merely pointing out that bird deaths due to wind farms are over blown when we don't care about these bird deaths. Nor does anyone seem to care about the song bird deaths caused by free roaming house cats.
Re: (Score:2)
That's reasonable, and also one reason I'd like to see such a debate actually happen. It'd be a respectable answer if Romney's position on renewable energy was that he agrees with the need to move away from fossil-fuel sources, but believes implementing modern, safe forms of nuclear power is the most practical means of doing so.
The first question I want asked of any candidate (Score:2)
The first question that needs to be asked in any science policy among presidental candidates is,
What is your stance on Miracles [youtube.com] as relates to the overall state of American science education?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you also expect the candidates to provide you with an adequate explanation of magnetism?
Re: (Score:2)
I expect a more open-minded reply than "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist, Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed"
A call for REASON (Score:2)
Do NOT let the candidates know the questions ahead of time - any parrot can rattle off speeches. It takes a real mind to answer real questions without filibustering the question into the ground, while seeming to sheeple that you did in fact answer the question.
Re:A call for REASON (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why Bother. (Score:5, Insightful)
We are no longer electing a person we are electing an ideology.
1. Innovation and the Economy: Democrats, More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
2. Climate Change: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
3. Research and the Future: Democrats,More money into funding NSF, and Public Universities. Republicans, let the private market innovate themselves, allow competition to improve be the driving factor.
4. Pandemics and Biosecurity: Democrats, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, From a federal funded scientist. Republicans, Wait until something happens in the US then we will have an answer 15 minutes before the problem climaxes, from a drug company scientist.
5. Education: Democrates, More money into schools, we will put some stupid metrics to show that it works. Republicans, vouchers for private schools, all competition of schools force them to improve.
6. Energy: Democrats, More money into less effective green energy in hopes that money will make it work better. Republicans Increase use in Nuclear and Natural Gas production and let the market decide what is best for them.
7. Food: Democrats, screw scientific results they are just from some corporate drone anyways, ban anything that sounds scary. Republicans let it all go out, and lets not try to measure it, until enough people are dying.
8. Fresh Water: Democrats, Find the most polluted areas spend a lot of money to clean it up (It cannot be used for drinking, or fishing. But there is a 50% reduction of pollution!!!), and show a nice big percentage number to show the improvement. Republicans, tell the population to buy water cleaning systems for their house.
9. The Internet: Democrats, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them More Open, but we tax it more. Republicans, Policies that will favor the internet companies that fund them, less open but no taxes.
10. Ocean Health: Democrats, heavy restrictions on all companies. Republicans, The Ocean is in in international waters... Not our concern.
11. Science in Public Policy: Both sides will give some BS answer and only cite science when it is for their benefit. Discredit the source when it isn't.
12. Space: Democrats, Wast of Time and Money. Republicans, a military strategy.
13. Critical Natural Resources: Democrats Put money in protecting or expanding and regulating the users. Republicans, Supply and Demmand will correct itself, once becomes to scarce price will rise high enough for alternative.
14. Vaccination and public health: Democrats, force it on everyone screw what their religion or belief is. Republicans let people decide for themselves, and allow the spread of misinformation too.
We are no longer getting candidates for leaders, we are getting ideology enforcers.
Democrats, Will spend want to spend more money to solve the problem, money will solve all problems.
Republicans, Will want private business to solve the problem, businesses can solve all problem.
What we need is a leader not an ideology. Who can look at these issues and say. If we change a process here we may be able to solve a problem without that much money. Or this area does have a good process but it needs some more money to reach critical mass. Analysis when there is policies are in conflict with each other and try to measure the trade offs.
But one of those guys would be those horrible moderates, or as we call them Flip Floppers. They do crazy things like listen to both sides, and use their own mind to come up with a solution. We don't want one of those people to rule our country. We want easy to digest sound bytes that follows a consistent ideology. Because a simple ideology will solve all our problems, the problem is always the other guy who will not allow us to implement our ideology.
Lazy (Score:3)
Honestly Republicans just sound lazy.
Q1: Question?
Rep: Meh. Let the Markets figure it out.
Its like they can't be bothered to come up with anything, just let the "market" fix everything for everyone.
A question of the better engine (Score:2)
Q1: Question?
Rep: Meh. Let the Markets figure it out.
It's more like - eh - why can't markets provide that solution?
After all, it's why America was founded, so that people would have to freedom to address problems as they arose through private industry. Government is NOT supposed to be doing a lot of work, because that is the job of the people.
You seem to think of it as "lazy". Yet it's like the man who has 100 miles to travel - they are just sitting back in a car, pressing a gas pedal and letting a powerf
History (Score:3)
I wasn't aware that the reason America was founded was to solve problems using private industry.
In fact I am pretty sure it wasn't.
For your education should you decide to look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War [wikipedia.org]
Basically says it was all about taxes, particulary without representation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence [wikipedia.org]
Has a bunch of stuff in there, but basically calls the king of england a big dickhole. Demands rights.
Note: All these things are in refer
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know no science. (Score:2)
Cabinet members not candidates (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the point of a debate (Score:3)
Graded? (Score:2)
I was with them until the "graded" part. Upon what criteria would they be graded? There's more to a policy than statistics, or experimentally verifiable facts. A policy's impact on human rights and individual liberty need to be taken into account.
Wait a minute... (Score:3)
... basic scientific literacy of elected officials
I'm seriously trying to get my head around that one. Is this supposed to be a joke?
Won't happen, and here's why (Score:5, Informative)
Obama:
Pros - Gets to look like an informed policy maker. Gets to highlight his record (real or perceived) as president: green energy, funding for innovation, R&D corporate tax credits, higher mileage standards, network neutrality, access to education. Gets to try to make Romney look like an ignorant fool touting flat-earth nonsense that panders to an ignorant base.
Cons - The people who are going to vote for him anyway already know this. The people who are undecided probably won't be swayed by his performance. His record thus far hasn't really satisfied environmentalists. Could come off as an egg-headed wonk rather than a substantive leader. Solyndra! Killing jobs in coal country! Higher energy costs! Loss of manufacturing!
Romney:
Pros - Gets to pound Obama on his record (real or perceived). Gets to pound Obama about job-killing regulations from the EPA, FCC, FDA, etc. Drill, baby, drill! Innovators are harmed, not helped, by government.
Cons - Doesn't have a coherent platform of his own to promote, other than the magic mystery of the markets and ending (unspecified) regulations. Will either have to 1) pander unscientific nonsense that accords with his base, 2) speak intelligently on science and technology and alienate his base, or 3) speak in platitudes (innovation good! climate change? I dunno. Government bad!) that won't win over anyone. The people who are going to vote for him anyway won't be any more committed to him any route he chooses. He might end up losing votes. He isn't likely to get many undecideds from his performance.
In short, there really aren't a whole lot of votes to be won from such a debate. There are votes to be lost. Nobody wants to appear uninformed on camera. Despite its indisputable importance, science and technology policy just doesn't deliver votes.
Why not... (Score:3)
Why not ask more basic questions dealing with things like evolution or even how conception works whether you are "legitimately" raped or not.
Press for this debate and make it LOUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This comes at a time when the basic scientific literacy of elected officials is under heavy scrutiny.
The problem is that the questions aren't about scientific "literacy". They're about policy (see article title). This is why the questions are the standard pap about global warming, research funding (into global warming, presumably), education ("more funding" is probably the answer they want to hear), energy (read: wind farms and other rentseeking green crap), water (mostly a state responsibility anyway), the usual fact-deprived bollocks about "ocean health", and "science in public policy", which means something like "how will you better persecute heretics who don't buy into the global warming fraud?".
And finally, "enforce vaccinations in the interest of public health" - ask Rick Perry how that one worked out.
The only one of those that I think couldn't be answered in a way in which you would seem to like is #2, because #2 requires you to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is changing (note that it doesn't require you to accept that man has caused the climate to change or that the change is unprecedented....and it even provides an out because it asks for a specific position on policies that I assume you completely oppose and then a general question on how to tackle challenges that cross national boundaries)
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul has ZERO chance of becoming President, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, simply put if there were no D or R, he would still be unelectable.
So long as he goes around saying it should be up to the states to decide if blacks and women can vote, and should let them decide if GOD is the ruler of a state; then that'll mean most of the US would be opposed to him.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking strictly in the sense of his claims that we should let the states decide if slavery is allowed or if women are property.
Unless he staunchly denounces both of those then he's not going to be electable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's two semi trucks driving down both lanes of the road not letting anyone pass. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with most of the third party candidates is that they are too fringe, they are even further from moderation. I am actually a registered member of the Modern Whig Party (A moderate group).
But if you saw the New York Governors race a couple years ago. They had a big debate with all the candidates. The Green Party and the Rent is too damn high party made the Democrats look like the moderates in the debate. Then republican was a strong Tea Party Candidate, and the had a Libertarian party too.
If th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typically, it allows you to vote in your party's primary election, which is how the party's candidates for the general election are chosen.
Some states have open primaries in which you don't have to be registered with a party in order to vote in their primary; however, other states require a party affiliation to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense. Europeans do just fine with their pluralistic political bodies. The idea that only a two-party system is viable is just narrow American thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
Do people actually believe this garbage or are these just bad jokes?
The majority of scientists I know lean right. Only the bad scientists who will say anything for more 'free' government funding lean left.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can't sling mud at people we disagree and call them religous, ignorant nutters who hate women and minorities or communist hippie nutters who want to destroy the America we have worked so hard for... Afterall, bucketizing people is what we do best. If one person who claims membership of a group does something bad, the entire group must be at fault.
Look no further than Penn State for a good example of how we lovingly lash out in defence of America and the Children and the Environment because the media
Re: (Score:2)
Penn State? They deserve whatever they get.
The football program and the university higherups covered up and protected a child molester, could it have been much worse?
You think even covering up child rape is something that should just be ignored?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of scientists you know are then idiots.
The republican party has fully embraced the far right christians. These are young earth crazies that are fine with destroying the earth as they believe the apocalypse is right around the corner. They have no interest in furthering knowledge beyond "God did it".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And my anecdote cancels out yours.
I actually know 0 scientists and engineers whose political beliefs can be so easily labeled.
I think that is the central problem with american politics. We have only two possible choices and they actually only cater to a select few.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of scientists you know are then idiots.
The republican party has fully embraced the far right christians. These are young earth crazies that are fine with destroying the earth as they believe the apocalypse is right around the corner. They have no interest in furthering knowledge beyond "God did it".
I think it is an oversimplification to simply say that scientists lean "left" or "right" as if they are monolithic policy positions. I am literally surrounded by scientists every day and it is fair to say that the vast majority are atheists or non-religious, but that is really where the left/right bias ends. Politically, science professors are just like everyone else; the older the get, the more conservative they get. The one glaring difference is that they are smarter than the average population and are pa
Re: (Score:2)
These questions are about policy around science. What policy do you propose about evolution? Some regulation that we must kill genetically inferior citizens?
Re: (Score:2)
It is an easy sanity check.
It really is that simple. It is not a troll, anymore than pointing out the earth is round.
Re:Evolution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, just reality.
If you want to believe the Earth is flat go for it. Just don't expect not to be mocked. Same thing for thinking the universe is 6000 years old.
Not all issues have two sides. Like with the shape of the earth there just can be no argument. Just reality and crazies.
Re: (Score:3)
I did not suggest people Mock them, I stated they should expect to be mocked.
No one is suggesting they are not people, only not fit to be elected.
People who cling to myths in the face of evidence are exhibiting magical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire left does not.
Most I bet do not even care about that question as it has no value to them.
For me I can say I care so little about it that I am fine accepting whatever time table you like. Even if we say when Mommy and Daddy got horny, that sounds fine to me. This does not change anything, medical procedures are the patients decision not mine, not yours.
Re:Evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice strawman, considering I said none of that.
Enforcing morality is not the role of government. A real conservative would know that. It is the governments role to recognize medical treatments are private and done for the patient not the whole town. You know small government all that jazz.
I care about human life a great deal, I also think encouraging a disdain for life would be bad. I cannot however support the government deciding what medical procedures people can purchase so long as they are not fraudulent.
A simple fact is abortion has reduced crime and the numbers of unwanted children. It is not the way I would want that to happen, but I live in reality and as such must accept that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it's really about when LIFE begins -- sure, they'll say that, but that's not the question. Shit, a single cell is ALIVE. My skin cells are alive, but you don't consider it murder if I get a mole removed. The question is not when it becomes ALIVE, but when it becomes a HUMAN BEING...and more specifically, when it becomes conscious. Which is hard to decide, since as far as I know we still don't really know what consciousness _is_. Of course, if the person is a bit more radical, they start talkin
Re: (Score:2)
Again no one said that. You have a hell of a persecution complex kiddo.
Only to not elect them to government office.
Re: (Score:3)
A loyalty oath is something imposed from above; a sanity check is something imposed by the electorate. Nobody is proposing barring people who give whackjob answers from running for president; we're just hoping that voters won't vote for them. This is how elections are supposed to work.