Plan B for science debate

steve smyth — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:44:06 GMT

maybe put the Presidential Science Quiz right here...a few basic questions...
proof of the test takers identity to be established...no advance hints...no letting the Science Advisor sit in...
what should the Boss know?
if the candidates don't respond, it'll look bad...that's politics for ya, ain't it?

Plan B for science debate

tom ,Annapolis, MD — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:02:04 GMT

So hard to understand why our knowledge and understanding of science moves forward by leaps and bounds. Yet our culture retreats into ignorance and dogma.

Plan B for science debate

Mark Schlee — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:06:08 GMT

A science debate would be really cool. Especially in Philadelphia

Plan B for science debate

OneVoice, Frederick, MD — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:48:25 GMT

Politics as usual. The Dems only want to argue about their own democratic party hot button issues and, to a degree, the Reps are the same. This is why the two party system never really gets anything intelligently and efficiently acomplished. I wonder Alan, was Nader invited and if so, what was his response? I am a little bit surprised McCain didn't respond but I suppose it was a strategic move on his part. No need to fight an opponent that is busy beating itself up.
Lets hope for an Oregon debate and real questions being answered.

Plan B for science debate

Mark — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:49:25 GMT

This is a fantastic idea. A much needed "focusser" on an aspect of public policy that is sadly neglected and misunderstood by both the public and the media. And I believe it is up to the two Democratic candidates to hold it, as the GOP clearly does not believe in science, and is in fact mostly frightened by it (from evolutionary biology to climatology, and just about everywhere in between). Go for it, guys.

Plan B for science debate

NJ, Guadalupe, CA — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:35:31 GMT

McCain says "extremist Islam" is the greatest challenge of the 21st century for America. I would certainly like him and both Democrats to address the much larger and faster approaching challenge of global warming and the necessity of global cooperation to moderate its effects before we choose our next "world leader!" Please get these people into the spotlight and get some straight answers or, at a minimum, give them a science education before we install anyone in the White House!!

Plan B for science debate

Joel Shields — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:34:02 GMT

Carl Sagan once said we live in a society which is built completely upon science and technology but we have a populace largely in ignorance of the subject. I find it very discouraging to hear that the major candidates have thus far chosen not to participate in a science debate. Ironically the most important topic that we should be discussing is the one that won't get any air-time.

Plan B for science debate

John C, Raleigh — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:05:58 GMT

> The voters have a right, and the candidates have a moral obligation... <

Balony. These are politicians, not scientists. They have enough to learn about issues regarding world affairs. They can put experts on staff in the areas of concern. The President does not need to be all knowing on all topics. I would hope they would avoid a debate like this because it is a waste of their time.

Plan B for science debate

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:17:47 GMT

A real pity that science gets such short shrift in this country. After the Bush administration has tried to make a joke of science with their faith-based superstitions it's time for our leaders to embrace proper real science. I hope Obama will attend such an important meeting.

Plan B for science debate

Corey Guidry, Houma LA — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:43:36 GMT

I'd imagine that Super Global Climate Warming Changeorama is a "real" issue that needs to be discussed... by Al Gore. I would like to know why NASA keeps getting its funding cut. Just because we aren't racing Russia to the moon doesn't mean that space exploration isn't important.

Plan B for science debate

Danny, Salt Lake City Utah — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:26:55 GMT

It disappoints me that none of the candidates have any interest in discussing the prevailing scientific and technological issues that will be facing one of them when elected. I know that this topic isn't as big of and issue for them as universal healthcare or pulling troops out of Iraq but it is still very very important to the many of us who actually care about this sort of thing. Technology and science are the basis of this modern society that we have created and it is an issue that deserves some attetion. What are their plans for funding new energy sources such as the ITER fusion reactor? How do they feel about automobiles powered by hydrogen? What about a Mars mission and further space exploration? It almost seems like they don't want to look like a bunch of idiots when they're asked questions that they don't have an answer to.

Plan B for science debate

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:20:53 GMT

It would be important to show where the candidates are on their plans to reivigorate science and engineering in the US. The Bush administration has continued a plan to cripple us in terms of science (education and advancement). The book, the Republican War on Science is a good example of this. I hope that the next president spends money on various science projects that get people of all types back involved in science.

Plan B for science debate

HHC, Dayton Oh — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:29:13 GMT

I'm thinking the candidates are clueless on science matters and aren't about to prove it in a public setting.

Plan B for science debate

Jerry M. Weikle — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:51:20 GMT

The Candidates should take a stand for Science and the advancement of the various Science fields in the American Society and across the various societies of the world. S.B. Stein, you are correct in your statement that "The Bush Administration has continued..to cripple us in terms of science education and advancement" Even the NCLB Act of 2002 is a farce in trying to develop standards within the educational system. Various individuals within the educational community recognize that the NCLB Act only "Dumbs America Down", and any creativity within the educational system or teaching methods are being Mandated by the Federal Government.
It is unfortunate that the candidates do not want to discuss science or technology--yet what actually is their backgrounds??? They are business people, the Clintons making over 109 Million in the last 7 years, according to their tax information. Also, the candidates are politician--they are skilled at looking the American people in the eye, and speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

The Federal Government, has known about the issues of Global Warming for several decades. The Government, has failed to act responsibly and in the best interest of the very people that it represents here in America. It is time that the American people also take responsibility in the various issues that are now facing each one of us, since the Federal Government is a Failure to the American People, especially in regards to Global Warming. http://www.wecansolveit.org/

Citizens can also support the Serria Club in the Federal Lawsuits against the Bush Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

We know that George W. Bush is a FAILURE of a President.

Obama, McCain, Mrs. Clinton--Are you, as President of the United States of America, as much of a FAILURE of Leadership in the areas of Science, Technology, and Education of the American People?

Without giving your Support to the Science Debate 2008, each of you are giving a impression to as being a future Failure within America.

Plan B for science debate

Greg, Oregon — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:44:40 GMT

The last Science literate president was Thomas Jefferson

Plan B for science debate

DBergan, Dallas, TX — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:33:43 GMT

The candidates have chosen their own issues to debate and, while those are important, a large and growing number of Americans (including scientific leaders, political leaders, universities and everyday citizens) have joined the Science Debate 2008 initiative and specifically asked the candidates to sit down and discuss issues related to scientific research, the environment, space exploration and more.

We've listened to what the candidates want to discuss and that has helped us get to know them better, but only on their chosen topics. Now it is time for the candidates to discuss our questions. If they're not listening to our requests when they're still campaigning for our votes, why would we think they will listen if elected?

I don't expect each candidate to be a scientific expert, but I would like to know that he or she is aware of critical scientific issues, concerned and willing to discuss the issues and consider new ideas. I would expect that a debate would explore not the candidate's knowledge base (the next president can surround himself or herself with experts), but the attitudes and aptitudes of the candidates to understand and address these important issues.

Plan B for science debate

Les Porter, Alamosa, Colorado — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:55:11 GMT

It is clear.

If these candidate puppets do not attend the Science Debate 2008, they are not worthy of our vote.

I offer plan C:

And I offer a bloodless revolutionary plan D.

The 15% polling number's for an invitation was the first and most destructive choice to assure the debates would not be held. If a full deck of candidates had been allowed, the debate would have been held, and these we are asking to attend would have been seated and scheduled. Gentlemen, it was a purposeful flaw.

Plan C: Re-schedule, include everyone that made the primary ballots, and include Ralph..

Maybe I still can naively hope some candidates will attend? Would Ron Paul, or Ralph Nader have been a good debater, and would they understand the issues? John Edwards? Bill Richardson? Rudy? Fred Thompson. Mitt? Biden? Chris Dodd? Well. The nails were thrown upon the road early to make sure the car never arrived.

How to start change: With or without Obama or Hillary C.

Plan D:

If the a few of the 50 State's Governors would start by appointing delegates to an amendatory convention to be held in Philly or, say, Denver, to convene before the election this year for the purpose of addressing the 576 state calls from all 50 states for a "constitutional convention" as promised as a peremptory requirement by Alexander Hamilton's addition to the constitution, ARTICLE V, we might be able to eliminate the current Congress, Judiciary, and Executive branches and garner serious improvements. The amendatory convention just needs to be convened, results might not come out for a year or two. Those results would go to the States for ratification, as stated in the Vth.

This is not rocket science. This is simply the Structural Law of the Land, the U S Constitution, through Article V wherein the power of this nation is returned to the States and the People, the Citizens, as a means of unloading what was never intended by the "founding fathers." The denials of your senators, the RNC, DNC, and the congressmen is grounds for prosecution -- which includes even the prosecution of the Supreme Court for its role in attempting to stand above the structural law of the Nation, instead of following it. They have all divorced themselves from you and I, and we the people.

All 50 states have called upon Congress, to hold the promised amendatory convention because of this "highest-level-conspiracy" -- this nations call, of, by, and for the people -- has been ignored.

Everyone in government, having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, are now subject to the prosecution of the people under the law of the constitution. We have this ONE chance for a bloodless revolution -- we have this chance to explore the undiscovered country. We should not allow the chance to be discarded by the DNC, the RNC and the Corporate owned media. And you see them coming after your right to bear arms, don't you now?

If you are sheep, do not read or try to grasp ARTICLE V -- or the 2nd amendment. You are easy prey. And you are already lost. The big die-off this Science Debate 2008 could have outlined for you will now be pooh-poohed, sidelined and side-stepped; and "sorry, no time for it."

The elimination of 3.5 to 4 billion people is being outlined for profit. That should interest you. It will be your children's children's grandchildren that will be eliminated. Your seed will be gone.

This science debate 2008 should be held, in Philly. But what I see has happened is that the seeds of the debate's own destruction were planted by the use of only 15% polling numbers. The "fix" to the debate -- could have been the invitation of all registered candidates.

We don't have time. As a species. We are on the tipping point. It is not ahead, it is behind.

I encourage you to learn the Constitution. Or at least the meaning of Article V. The meaning Alexander Hamilton imputed to it to convince the delegates to create a Federal government they could change when it went wrong. If Article V had not been added -- we might not still exist as a nation. But it was a false promise if you let stand the failure of the Candidates and the Congress and the President and the Judiciary to support their oaths. (One hundred years ago they might have been hung for treason, not simply faced with 20 years in a federal facility. Read the structural law.)

If you do not understand Article V, as I once did not, read here: www.article5.org

or here:

www.foavc.org.

The Constitution could be re-written -- and should be to enlarge from the 2 party system to a less cordial backscratching club. And the re-write might move the power away from the current lobby field in Washington, and eliminate corporate ownership of Congress.

All 50 state have made The Article V Call -- and there are 576 constitutional issues. It is time to honor the peremptory within the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton did not give the power to hold the amendatory convention in the existing Congress by the existing participants, but rather by those newly appointed to repair the Law of the Land, when Congress has so clearly failed the people.

I certainly had hoped these candidates would see beyond their handlers. The DNC and The RNC are playing us like fiddles.

Plan B for science debate

Les Porter, Alamosa, Colorado — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:55:49 GMT

It is clear.

If these candidate puppets do not attend the Science Debate 2008, they are not really worthy of our vote.

Too bad the message can't be sent -- "none of the" above -- without meaningful intelligent debate.

The people have to get back in control of this thing. . .

Plan B for science debate

Kobie, USA — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:55:11 GMT

Those asking for my vote should have not fear explaining why they deserve it. Science in the schools, lab and on my table affects my family and I daily.

I hope they can explain why they should not debate. What are they hiding from us??

How will they take that 3am call about H5N1 - pandemic. What is their leadership plan? I would like to know.

I do not want to debate the pros or cons of one theory over another. Just please show me the leadership and understanding of the issues so I can rest well at night.

Thanks in advance,
Kobie

Plan B for science debate

Michal Mudd, Albuquerque, New Mexico (yes, USA) — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:39:45 GMT

I want to know why the Green Party candidates were given the cold shoulder and urge Mr. Otto and the organizers to include them (we don't have our nominating convention until July) if and when this event is rescheduled. Three of our Green candidates were not afraid to talk science, I think that's damned significant!

Many, if not all of our significant national and world issues all revolve around science. More importantly, we are looking at an electorate that is increasingly illiterate in regards to the simplest of scientific concepts. Giving science the respect and regard it deserves by even having the decency to show up and say "I don't know but I will surround myself with people who DO" would be a great start.

Instead we get such issues as lapel pins, preachers, faith, and jokes elevated to national importance and candidates who make the time in their schedule to appear on SNL yet can't make a simple debate???
Unbelievable!

Plan B for science debate

Deobritch — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:29:58 GMT

I appreciate your site, guys. An interesting debate is a nice idea.