Well, they’ve got one Republican and one Democratic congressman to agree to co-chair a presidential debate on science, which is good news. The framework for the debate is coming together…now all they need is some debaters.
This is no way to run a country.
Yeah, they’re already pouring in: everyone has a list of the best or worst of 2007. Most I couldn’t care less about, but the Beast’s 50 most loathsome people in America is at least primo grade-A disgust.
The winners in this year’s list weren’t just predictable, they were inevitable.
Ann Coulter is unhappy with Huckabee, but not for his many failings that rational people see as an obstacle—but because he is insufficently critical of evolution. She really wants a presidential candidate to not just deny modern science, but to advocate a platform that proposes to take action in the schools against it.
This would be an ordinary photo if it were a young girl and her father or grandfather.
But no… they’re a ‘couple’.
He’s forty, she’s eleven. And they are a couple – the Afghan man Mohammed F.* and the child Ghulam H.*. “We needed the money”, Ghulam’s parents said. Faiz claims he is going to send her to school. But the women of Damarda village in Afghanistan’s Ghor province know better: “Our men don’t want educated women.” They predict that Ghulam will be married within a few weeks after her engagement in 2006, so as to bear children for Faiz.
I guess pedophiles in Afghanistan have no shame. It’s tragic that that girl has just been condemned to a lifetime in the kitchen and the bedroom, something between being a slave and a pet.
I did not bite the head off that chicken.
Popular Mechanics has sorted through the various presidential candidates web sites for information on their stance on various science-relevant issues (and on gun control…how that ended up in their matrix is a mystery, and I presume there is just some gun fanatic on their staff). They have produced a
table listing various science issues for each candidate with check marks indicating whether they have declared anything on the subject. You can’t get their positions from the table — a check just means there is more information available — and you have to click through each to figure out what they’re saying.
Right away you’ll notice that pretty much everyone is ignoring space technology (sorry, Phil). The Republicans have little interest in science education, and when you click through, they’re usually just mouthing platitudes, like “encourage students to pursue science careers”. The Democrats are much, much better — they make more points and offer some specifics. Clinton wants to restore the OTA and improve the science advisor’s access, as does Edwards; Edwards also want to increase NIH and NSF funding and remove research restrictions, and invest more in teacher training and pay. Obama wants to double research funding. Richardson wants to hire and train 100,000 new math and science teachers.
Anyway, it’s a useful guide to what the politicians say they want to do, and gives a peek into their priorities. It looks like if you’re pro-science, you ought to be a Democrat; if you’re pro-gun, you need to vote Republican, or for John Edwards.
At least ten.
Personally, I find that an unctuous purveyor of holier-than-thou morality’s failures as a parent damning…although his son’s amorality wouldn’t be such a problem if Huckabee hadn’t tried to cover it up.
In a field of nightmares, it takes a special person to elevate themselves to the position of the worst of the worst…and Huckabee is that special person.
Steve 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.
As 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, Medicine and Health, and Science and Technology Policy.
I’ve expressed my opinion of such an effort before — I think it’s an excellent idea, but suspect that most of the candidates would refuse to submit to it. Not only is there the science test factor, in which we’re asking them to get evaluated on something most know nothing about, but the Republican slate in particular is full of astonishing idiots who hold beliefs contradicted by science. I just can’t believe they’ll step up on the podium for this one, unless they perhaps see an opportunity to hijack the discussion to promote their personal piety.
I still want it to happen: this is an opportunity to apply pressure to our candidates to have some minimal, basic science literacy. As I previously mentioned, though, those airheads with nice hairdos that populate the television media are even more dim than the candidates themselves, and must not be allowed anywhere near the event — I want wildlife biologists armed with tranquilizer guns at the doors, with orders to shoot Russert and Blitzer and anyone from Fox News on sight. How about if we put Natalie Angier, Carl Zimmer, John Horgan, Ira Flatow, John Tierney, and Cornelia Dean on a panel asking questions? How about if we ask Science and Nature to send representatives with questions? I would dearly love to see a debate on any subject where the candidates had to deal with issues of some substance.
So let’s all make a noise about this one, OK? Rattle the cages, and tell the candidates we want to hear opinions on topics that matter for the leader of a technological, 21st century society, rather than the usual tripe.
