The latest issue of New Scientist features a special report on the 2008 election, exploring the "most pressing science issues facing John McCain and Barack Obama in the run up to the November ballot."
The key issue? According to the experts interviewed for the piece, it's simply having someone in the White House who is "more aware of science" than the Bush administration has been for the past eight years. "We feel it's enormously important to have a president who is scientifically savvy and who takes a leadership role in ensuring that our public policies are based on the best and most accurate scientific assessments," Anne Soloman of the non-partisan Center for the Study of the Presidency tells the magazine.
The Bush administration has repeatedly drawn criticism not just for neglecting science, but for manipulating and suppressing science for political ends. Among the most notorious incidents was the attempted muzzling of NASA climate expert James Hansen. The Union of Concerned Scientists has documented dozens more cases where it says scientific integrity has been compromised, most often where science informs industrial regulation and environmental protection.
"There has been active sabotage," says Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, which last month issued a nine-point plan called Saving Science from Politics. Among the changes it calls for are increased protection for whistleblowing scientists within federal agencies and a curb on the power of political appointees to influence the conclusions of government studies.
According to Steinzor, a systematic devaluation of science and scientists within the federal government over the past eight years leaves the next president with an enormous repair job on his hands. "We think this is a major area where change is needed," agrees Lesley Stone, executive director of Scientists and Engineers for America, which promotes sound science in government.
The piece is critical of both McCain and Obama for not speaking specifically enough about these issues, but it indicates that Obama has done a better job of surrounding himself with advisers who are experts in science, climate, and energy policy.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Jonas Posted 6:37 pm
10 Sep 2008
I mean, honestly, if this disaster in the making materialises, it really means the final step towards the definitive downfall of the USA - and the consequences would be catastrophic for the entire planet.
How can the American population even consider voting for a republican after 8 years of irrational, quasi-terrorist, criminal governance?
In the mean time, a large Globescan poll shows that the world wants Obama - four to one.
(BBC: Obama win preferred in world poll).
So the difference between the world and the US is growing ever deeper.
(Perhaps it's best not to mention this poll on an American website, because that might only strengthen McCain - apparently, Americans don't like the rest of the world, even though they're the ones who are screwing up that world most.)
In any case, the unimaginable cannot be happening.
I'm not sure what to do if McCain wins. How can one cope with the impossible?
Permalink
BlackBear Posted 7:09 pm
10 Sep 2008
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:28 pm
10 Sep 2008
In the mean time, a large Globescan poll shows that the world wants Obama - four to one.
(BBC: Obama win preferred in world poll).
Unfortunately, American has this cohort of filthy yahoos who hate the rest of the world and take a perverse gutter pride in outraging it.
That's the scum you see chanting Burn Baby Burn and frothing at the mouth over Sarah Palin, one of their own.
So they'd read your comment and laugh.
Yee-haw!
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:46 pm
10 Sep 2008
These are also the most extreme group of those in America who hate the intellect and science. Not having intellects, they are incapable of understanding science, or any sophisticated subject.
But being aggressive and hateful, they hate what they can't understand (this is also part of why they hate the outside world), and seek to destroy its influence. That's why they've so exuberantly embraced the openly, proudly idiotic Bush and his admin, and they look to Palin as the promise of a continued flat-earth governing ideology. That's why they'll all vote for her.
Unfortunately, American anti-intellectualism and ignorance of science is not confined to the crackers. It has a long, broad pedigree, even among the "educated".
That's why Obama shies away as well - nobody can win any votes in America by being the "science candidate".
Permalink
Jonas Posted 9:21 pm
10 Sep 2008
I really see this fight in Spenglerian terms. This is a fight about life and death, about light and dark, about reason and madness.
The choice has never been so clear for Americans, I think.
---------- end of intermezzo ---------
Russ, I agree: no American politician can come out and say he's an atheist, a homosexual or a science-minded person - even though the majority of them are one or more of the above. All these normal things are seen as taboo in the US.
But that's only when it comes to getting elected. Once in office, there are reasonable people amongst the executive and the legislative crowd.
So there's a split between what the average American wants (a quintessential image of a symbol of a simulacrum of an American: science-averse, deeply religious, sexually correct, etc), and what the politician really thinks.
That's a strange disconnect. We don't have it here in Europe. I've never understood this. Despite being a reasonably well developed country (materially speaking), the U.S. has so many taboos about so many rather boring subjects (science, sexuality, religion, etc...). It requires a lot of explanation. This explanation is best given by self-reflecting Americans, because we're tired of being called eurosnobs.
So tell us: why are you so weird?
Permalink
314159265 Posted 9:55 pm
10 Sep 2008
The whole thing is perhaps: stupids are easier to govern. +, Morons are easily BSed into investing in BS, that's good for the economy.
U.S. needs no decent science education as long as they got enough money to import scientists from outside. Oops, the money...
Sometimes methinks McBush should win, to complete the neocon wreckage and harvest what they have sown. (E.g. financial meltdown - why burden Obama with that, it's not his fault.) After that, people might perhaps learn.
Mars J. Pictor Florifulgurator, Western Bavarian Forest.
Permalink
Russ Posted 10:26 pm
10 Sep 2008
First off, there is no unitary "America" except in the purely technical sense. Is there one Europe?
That glop I spoke of is a radically alien manifestation, and there's plenty of decent people who disavow it completely.
Having said that,
That's a strange disconnect. We don't have it here in Europe. I've never understood this. Despite being a reasonably well developed country (materially speaking), the U.S. has so many taboos about so many rather boring subjects (science, sexuality, religion, etc...). It requires a lot of explanation. This explanation is best given by self-reflecting Americans, because we're tired of being called eurosnobs.
To put it very simply, while America is as modern as it gets where it comes to technology and (ironically) science, and organizational layout of government, economy, and society, where it comes to culture, wisdom, spirit, intellect, America is really still a medieval society, and evidently regressing to the Dark Ages.
So what does that mean? We don't have to think hard for 20th century examples of that paradox.
What about Vaclav Klaus of Chechoslovakia, or certain politicos from Poland? Ugh, and I don't want to get into ranting about Bavarian barbarians...
I don't know about Bavarians, but as for Eastern Europe, I get the impression that those who were dissidents under communism often went too far in the opposite direction and became obnoxious "neocon" types, Euro equivalents of the ugly American.
Just because the Soviet Bloc way was no good does not mean the American way is "good" in any absolute sense. That doesn't follow.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:23 pm
10 Sep 2008
A sea-coast is vital for this trade and communication. This is the reason most of the world's economic centres are located along the coast. Due to the lack of trade access, inland areas usually tend to be economic backwaters. People living in such areas are less educated, less exposed to modern society, and have less access to information. So, their culture will be quite different from coastal cultures.
The divide that is seen in the USA is essentially this. The same divide is apparent in Europe (czech republic, switzerland, poland have more right wing governments), India (the north indian heartland is less educated than the coastal south) or anywhere else in the world.
Anti-intellectualism, anti-science, religious fundamentalism etc.. have support mainly from inland people. This is only recently getting to change due to the spread of internet.
But the current US elections are so important that the electoral map should not be analyzed in these terms alone. Democrats should get a majority in several interior states. If the Obama campaign doesn't make any gaffes and gets the message nicely across, they might do it. The task is to inform the uninformed, to focus more on the issues and less on trappings (like Palin's lipstick), and to win the minds of the several good natured people living in the flyover country. Not to allow the republicans to do name calling such as "elitists", "deriders", "coastal phony intellectuals", "closet communists", "anti-christ" and so on..
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 12:03 am
11 Sep 2008
Our God is an angry, jealous God. There is only one God and Jesus is his prophet. The Bible thumpers are hoping they can get us all to heaven...that's why they're doing this. This is the Bible vote, plain and simple.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 12:07 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
314159265 Posted 12:33 am
11 Sep 2008
It's the outside world that finances the U.S. deficits.
The outside world also suffers (pays) from bad U.S. policy
Yeah, we (outside world) once greatly benefited from U.S. policy. (Yeah I'm happy you got us rid of Hitler.) But then, that's long gone times. Meanwhile, it's the other way round: You (U.S.) suck up the outside world but don't want to know it. You brought terrorism to South America, nondemocratic regimes to Iran, Iraq, etc. (and now war) etc. You ruin the very basis of Life for future generations (AGW, resource depletion, species extinction, ruinous agriculture, etc.) but don't want to hear about this, etc. etc.
That's why we care.
Mars J. Pictor Florifulgurator, Western Bavarian Forest.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:43 am
11 Sep 2008
Think of the US elections as something like the American Idol. Who wins the elections are the most likable people, judged by Americans sitting before their TV sets. People don't care much about economics or environment, and particularly not from foreigners like you and me.
We guys do care about the US elections, because we get F'd in the A ultimately, if McCain-Palin (Sauron-Saruman) ever step into the white house.
What we should do is to maximize the chances of an Obama win. This is simply a publicity operation, an advertizing campaign. The consumers are the middle-states of USA. The conservatives are cunning and do this strategy openly. But who says liberals can't be the same. Being the smarter of the two (by a HUGE quotient), democrats can beat the republicans at their own game.
We foreigners wish you the best in this game, democrats. We will be cheering you there.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:12 am
11 Sep 2008
There should be a department of science and technology with a Secretary of S&T with ready access to the president. Such a position would take charge of coordinating the information flow between the science and tech communities and the federal government. They would not have authority to 'run' the science enterprise, only to make sure there was a free flow of information between all interested parties. They could take on a role of monitoring any interference with the normal science process and focus sunlight on any such attempts.
They could also work with the Dept. of Education to boost science and math learning by, of all things, listening to the developmental psychologists and neurobiologists about how human children actually learn (hint: it isn't by force-feeding subjects to kids).
There are some rumblings about this idea in the Obama camp. I doubt that anything even remotely similar is on the radar in the McCain camp.
Of course, the best possible situation would be to have a president with some actual science experience. S/he doesn't necessarily need to have been a working PhD physicist. But it would be nice to know that they had studied some sciences in college (before turning to law ;^( ) Oh well, dream on.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:49 am
11 Sep 2008
Obama is ahead in the Electoral College. If nothing changed between now and the election Obama would be the winner.
McCain is getting a big post-convention bounce. Almost totally due to Palin. But the blush is coming off that rose. The media is starting to call her on her lies and the novelty is wearing off. I expect overall polling to turn back toward Obama within a few days. Unless McCain comes up with some real issues that speak to voters he's likely to fall far behind.
--
Countries have their ups and downs. Look around Europe, you who live there, and you can find many examples. Seems to me that there's a tendency in Europe to pick out the countries who are doing the best at the moment and use those as proof that Europe is best.
(How about that guy running Italy at the moment?)
America is on the down slope at the moment. Hopefully close to the bottom and ready to pull back up.
I'm actually a bit hopeful as I think we have just seen the end of Reganism. Remember that Regan ended the FDR period of American governing. Now Reganism seems to have sufficiently failed that it is likely to be replaced with a rethinking of the role of government in the US.
We're likely to see a new political philosophy emerging over the next few years in America. One that combines some of the fiscal constraints of Reganism with some of the social policies of FDR.
Obama, while an attorney, is smart enough and experienced enough to formulate a new politic. He won't be "America's Number One Scientist". But he is smart enough to listen to those who are knowledgeable.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:59 am
11 Sep 2008
Well, we probably wouldn't have the extreme national debt that we now have.
We probably would have some non-fossil fuel solutions in place rather than having to play extreme catch-up.
We still would have seen the fall of the USSR. Regan, at best, sped that up a few months but spent a fortune in tax money for a very slight gain.
We probably wouldn't have seen the rise of the anti-knowledge wing of the Republican Party. It's very unlikely that everyone would have had to suffer through Bush.
While the current Bush is most likely going to be regarded as one of the two or three worst US presidents ever, history is likely to see Regan as a president who did more harm than good and began a period of serious decline for America.
Permalink
archigeek Posted 2:05 am
11 Sep 2008
The mellotron is your friend.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 2:15 am
11 Sep 2008
I would suggest a two-step approach to assessing the polls. Look to the national polls for the latest reactions to, say, the conventions or troopgate or what have you. But then view those national trends through the lens of how the candidates have been doing in individual states needed to gain an electoral edge.
Obama still has a chance to win, but it could be excruciatingly close. And he could very well lose if McSame is effective at picking off key states such as New Mexico and Colorado.
I don't think that McSame needs any "issues" to win -- at least not as we wonkish types would define them. His strategy appears to be to lower turnout by creating a mud-slinging contest. The lower the turnout, the more likely that McSame will prevail.
This is a distasteful strategy, but it has been used in the past by desperate candidates in both parties. And it has worked. I respect Obama's attempt to elevate the discourse, but I fear that he doesn't fully appreciate the depths to which the Republicans will sink. So far Obama has allowed the R's to set the agenda to a significant degree because he hasn't been aggressive enough in both attacking McSame and responding to charges against him.
Civil discourse may have gone the way of the buffalo in national politics. We may lament that fact, but it doesn't win an election.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:42 am
11 Sep 2008
Yesterday AK, AL, MI, MO, MD, NC, NH, ND, PA, VA, and WV were polled.
The day before FL, MD, MI, MT, NC, NJ, OK, WI were polled.
Here's an excellent site for keeping up with polls, both state and national.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
--
Here's how I see the McCain strategy for winning to date.
First, his policies are essentially the same as Bush. 80%+ of Americans view those policies as total failures, so he can't run on policies.
So, he runs on "destroy your opponent". Find any possible criticism, even if it's a lie and pound on it. Just look at the "lipstick" lie.
Then pick out something that makes your side look good, even if it's a lie and pound on it. Just look at the "I canceled the Bridge to Nowhere" lie.
Seems to me that there is a role for a '527' to play. Buy a bunch of ten second ad spaces and bomb the airwaves with "Lie!, Lie!, Lie!" messages. Jam McCain's and Palin's lies back down their throats. Make them abandon the distortion tactic and return to issues.
That would leave Obama free to talk issues and to connect with people. If that happens he clearly wins.
(I do take heart in the fact that McCain has gone so negative this early in the election. That shows that their internal polling likely has their panties in a bunch. It has the stink of desperation.)
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:10 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 3:16 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:22 am
11 Sep 2008
No, what was broken in 2000 was the Florida State (hate typing that as I've got a couple of degrees from FSU) vote counting process.
And a very broken Supreme Court.
Nothing was broken in the Electoral College. It was circumvented.
History will undoubtedly list Dred Scott and the selection of Bush as the two greatest black marks on the record of the US Supreme Court.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 5:00 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:33 am
11 Sep 2008
If the gigantic scale and growth of unbridled over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species now overspreading the surface of Earth were to lead to some unimaginable kind of catastrophe, AND WE, THE PEOPLE, FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW HUMAN BEINGS PERPETRATED THE CALAMITOUS EVENT, are those who survive the devastation and "pick up the pieces" of a broken civilization and a ravaged Earth not DESTINED TO DO AGAIN THE VERY SAME THINGS WE ARE DOING NOW........with the likelihood of causing another incomprehensible catastrophe in the distant future?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
fonzie3b Posted 6:48 am
11 Sep 2008
Then there is the opposite contingent that is just dying to get into power and change everything EVERYTHING that he who must not be named and his administration has done. Oddly enough there appears to be almost equal numbers of people in each of these groups, though the right wing side shoves it down your throat.
By far the majority of Americans fall into the third group. These are the people who are just not interested in politics and the larger world but rather living their lives as comfortable as possible within their means. They are good people, for the most part. They go to work pay their bills and raise their families. They don't pay attention and know almost nothing about the issues that don't affect them daily, but don't like what has been going on for the last 8 years, which is why McPalin is trying so hard to plant doubts about Obama.
McCain is throwing everything against the wall hoping something will stick to turn people away from Obama, not necessarily voting for McCain but by staying away from the polls entirely.
The three Presidential debates are Sept 26, Oct 7, and Oct 15th. The Vice Presidential debate is Oct 2nd and all are being covered by every major television network. Obama has a real chance during the debates to show himself to the third group and win enough of them to tip the election. These people watch a lot of TV and like the previous comment about American Idol, they will decide whether to vote and who they want to vote for by watching these debates. Hopefully Obama will be able to persuade enough of them to go to the polls on Election Day and based on his philosophy of grassroots organization in numerous battleground states that just might happen.
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 11:32 am
11 Sep 2008
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 11:29 pm
11 Sep 2008
But the REAL answer to the question of how McSame could possibly be polling even with Obama, when he represents the party that has brought unbelievable damage to this country in every field, AND McLame is personally a boring, clueless, rather pathetic old man with a suspicious growth on this neck, joined by a young, pretty, exciting, Neanderthal who is perhaps even more clueless...how could they be polling in the double digits, let alone even with Obama? The obvious answer is racism and that IS a factor, but can't account for all of it. I think the real answer is that the corporate media which controls public opinion, especially TV "news", is more completely and effectively controlled in this country than in Europe. The public is still childishly naive about the collusion between the five or six media megacorps to control their viewpoints. Quite likely, the polling agencies are in on it too, skewing results to suggest that McPain has more support than he really does, thus winning him more support from sheepthink types, and making credible a Republican "win" engineered by computer programmers at Diebold and Sequoia. In other words, we've all been persuaded that the stupids among us are a majority, by means of smoke and mirrors--including paid trolls. And so we don't rise in revolt, as we would if we realized how we've been robbed since 2000 especially.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:27 am
13 Sep 2008
You couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. is the right wing capital of the world. Even business leaders in Europe around WWI were commenting how the U.S. is such a business run society. The Hamiltonian right wingers won the war as soon as Thomas Jefferson died, and the only respite we've had was between the 1929 stock market crash and the end of WWII, when average Americans were really hurting financially. Once average people became prosperous -- owning houses and cars just like rich people -- they started voting Republican, as Michael Moore pointed out years ago. And even the ones who remained Democrats became much more right wing, leading to a Democratic Party that's also a right wing party, just not as right wing as the Republican Party. As was explained to me after questioning how Americans could have reelected Richard Nixon, there are far too many Archie Bunkers in the U.S. to ever elect a progressive like George McGovern.
Fonzie & Wildfire,
The reason for the right wing politics/apathy among average Americans is their prosperity. As most people become rich, as average Americans have, they become far less interested in politics and far more interested in just their personal lives. What drives political interest for most people is the perceived need for it. Where people think everything is fine because they've got theirs, they simply don't care anymore. I know from friends who live in Europe and who have live there that the U.S. is significantly more racist, but that doesn't explain anything except opposition to Obama. John Kerry is white and wasn't running on anti-racist platforms, so how do you explain his not trouncing George Bush?
Permalink