Politics
gregladen | December 11, 2007You'll remember that some time ago (ten, eleven minutes?) I reposted (from gregladen.com) an interesting story about a study of how the mind works. I did that because I knew that the researchers involved in this study have a new survey up on their web site, and that you might want to know about it. From Heather Gray, one of the researchers:
...we recently revised the mind survey, just in time for the presidential primaries. Now our respondents are asked to judge pairs of American politicians-- for instance, is Barack Obama or Rudy Giuliani more capable of being honest, exerting self-control…
pharyngula | December 11, 2007Steve King (Rotten-Iowa) has our house of representatives pondering a resolution that states that Christmas is peachy-keen…and that also contains implicit assumptions that the US is a Christian nation. It's very devious: under the cover of empty, feel-good fluff, it advances right-wing religious talking points. It's sneaky. It's underhanded. It's dishonest. It's so Christian.
jstemwedel | December 11, 2007In response to one of my science-related questions for the presidential candidates, Drugmonkey points out that the question might not work the way I want it to because of the chasm between science and politics:
"8. If sound scientific research were to demonstrate that one of your policy initiatives couldn't work (or couldn't work without tremendous cost in terms of money, health risk, negative environmental impact, etc.), what would you do?"
This almost, but not quite, hits the fundamental cultural problem between the two societies, science and politics. Your question should be reframed as "…
mixingmemory | December 11, 2007Sorry to bring this up again, as I'm sure most of you couldn't care less, but something about the idea of a presidential debate on science-related issues really bugs me, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what that is. Plus, part of me is hoping that someone will come along and explain to me why this is a good idea.
So far, though, there seem to be two main justifications for having this debate. The first, expressed in the quote from the Sciencedebate 2008 website (and elsewhere) is that we are utterly dependent on science and technology in virtually every aspect of our lives. This…
tqa | December 11, 2007
Last night, in Oslo, Al Gore delivered a simple, powerful message. It's a familiar message to anyone who has watched him speak since 2000, or watched his movie, or read his books. It's simply a call for nothing more or less than the need for all of us to accept responsibility for the effects of our actions:
So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the…
grrlscientist | December 11, 2007tags: Hollywood writers' strike, cute internet animals, humor, politics, streaming video
This is hilarious. All the cute animals on the internet are going on strike (by not being cute or adorable anymore) in support of the Hollywood writers' strike. From Colbert Report writers Frank Lesser and Rob Dubbin, and Viola/violin: Niamh and Pamela. [1:18]
clock | December 10, 2007Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney have been promising something for a week, teasing us with tantalizing hints about something big. We were told to read Chris' article Dr.President, and then this morning another article, Science and the Candidates by Lawrence Krauss.
Finally, today a little before 2pm EST, we got the idea what it was going to be and at 2, they posted their Call for a Presidential Science Debate on their blog, as well as invited everyone to the brand new Facebook group of the same title.
They have started an initiative to organize a debate for the U.S Presidential candidates…
pontiff | December 10, 2007There's a new initiative to get a presidential debate on issues of science and technology: Science Debate 2008 (list of supporting Important People (capital letters) and bloggers (no capital letters).) I'm all for the idea, since I know little about the candidates positions related to science and technology. Which of course, is a bad excuse, and thus led me to try to dig deep into the intertubes and see if I could find a list of the candidates positions on science and technology.
Here is a collection of some of the relevant links I could find. For some candidates it was quite hard to find…
tsmith | December 10, 2007Just a P.S.--if ignorance like Mike Huckabee's comments on HIV/AIDS drives you nuts, check out what Chris and Sheril (among others) have put together, calling for real debate on science and technology issues by the presidential candidates:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S.…
tsmith | December 10, 2007Still playing end-of-year catch-up with grants and manuscripts so posting will be sporadic, but I'd be remiss not to mention this story regarding presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's past views on HIV/AIDS:
In 1992, Huckabee wrote, "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."
"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population…
mixingmemory | December 10, 2007If you haven't heard, fellow ScienceBloggers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection have launched a movement called Sciencedebate 2008, in which they demand that the presidential candidates have a debate entirely on science and science-related issues. They've received the backing of Nobel laureates, editors and journalists, prominent business people for this statement:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role…
aardvarchaeology | December 10, 2007Dear Reader, according to my server logs, you are likely to live either in the US or in Sweden. Considering the blog neighbourhood I'm in, and the contents of Aard, I believe you care about science. Regardless of party politics, and wherever we all are in the world, I think we can agree that we urgently need the next US president to be science-friendly, science-savvy and reality-based.
The Science Debate 2008 initiative has been launched to push science policy as a central issue in the US presidential campaign. Specifically, and using their not inconsiderable media clout, the original…
drorzel | December 10, 2007Following on an article in Seed and an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ScienceBloggers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum (of The Intersection) have teamed up with a bunch of other smart people to launch Sciencedebate 2008:
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their…
denialism | December 10, 2007We must adapt to the fact that over the last few decades it has become critical that our politicians and policymakers understand science and implement policy that is consistent with scientific facts. And it is past time that we made science enough of a priority to merit a presidential debate on science. The need is clear, these days policymakers must be able to respond in an informed fashion to new technologies, new scientific findings, and potential disasters (such as climate change). Despite the need for a scientifically-literate political leadership, we have a president who says the…
grrlscientist | December 10, 2007tags: science, public policy, politics, federal funding, research, reality-based government, 2008 American presidential elections, ScienceDebate2008
There are plenty of debates for presidential candidates on all sorts of topics, but have you noticed that none of these debates include any discussion about science and research? Sure, the candidates all are ready to whine about how there "aren't enough scientists and engineers out there", but that is purely a bullshit sentiment based on blatant lies -- as I and thousands of other un(der)employed Americans with PhDs in various scientific,…
jstemwedel | December 10, 2007
Science matters. It's hard to make good decisions in today's world that aren't somehow informed by sound science -- especially if you're the head of state of a country like the USA.
This means that it's important to know where the people lined up to get the job of President of the United States stand on science. Those of us deciding how to vote could use this information, and even you folks who are subject to US foreign policy have a significant interest in knowing what you'll be in for.
There ought to be a presidential debate focused on science and technology before the 2008 election. It…
hrynyshyn | December 10, 2007
A long list of science community luminaries, including Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum of our own Intersection, are trying to organize the first ever presidential candidate debate on matters scientific and technological. This would be a good thing. Science Debate 2008 is at this point just a proposal, however, and it won't materialize without pressure from a much wider support base than the current list, which includes:
Evolution guru Niles Eldredge, Scientific American editor John Rennie, conservation ecologist Stuart Pimm, some corporate heavyweights, two congressmen, a bunch of…
pharyngula | December 10, 2007As Sheril hinted earlier, there is now a formal call for a science debate by the presidential candidates.
A CALL FOR A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we, the undersigned, call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment,…
terrasig | December 10, 2007Yes! "A Call for a Presidential Debate on Science & Technology."
Imagine a presidential debate focused solely on issues of science and technology as they relate to medicine, international competitiveness, terrorism, public health, embryonic stem cell research, bioethics of genotyping and other molecular diagnostics, research policy/funding and job creation, or minimization of health disparities, among others.
Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative spearheaded by a growing number of scientists and other concerned citizens. The signatories to our "Call for a Presidential Debate on…
jlynch | December 10, 2007Presidential debates are largely meaningless. Simpleminded questions posed by simpleminded moderators who actively prevent candidates from answering in any sort of nuanced manner (were they able). In short, a microcosm of American political discourse in which snark and soundbite dominate substance every time.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could hear candidates answer questions on issues that we as scientists - and concerned public - care about? Wouldn’t it be great if we could have candidates devote an extended debate to such issues, a debate in which the environment, medicine & health, and…