01-06-2008, 09:32 PM
[quote x-uri]I was not criticizing your choice of linkaged, PeterB, just pointing out that -- after 7+ years of faith-based government -- people are very interested in the science and technology policies of the candidates.
There are also a couple of reviews of the candidates policies on space exploration here and here.
The Republican party has been so thoroughly colonized by the forces of ignorance and superstition that there is no viable choice on that side. Giuliani is probably the most enlightened candidate, but he is keeping quiet about science policy for fear of censure from the "I ain't descended from no monkey" constituency.
On the Democratic side, Senator Obama is the most problematic, but it mostly seems like nobody in his campaign thought to prepare any Science and Technology talking points for him. Offsetting his science education plan by de-funding NASA, though, is fairly dumb-assed and cowardly. Going after NASA to appear fiscally conservative has the stink of a focus-group.
If you go down the "Science Education" column in the Popular Mechanics "Geek the Vote" matrix Clinton and Edwards are the only ones making concrete policy statements, and Edwards edges out Clinton by having a somewhat broader vision (although they coincide on most points).
Edwards gets my (tentative) support because he appears to be the only candidate who is making Science and Technology policies part of his standard campaign recitation.
No, I didn't take it as criticism of the linking choices, don't worry...
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that "after 7+ years of faith-based government -- people are very interested in the science and technology policies of the candidates" (I myself obviously am, but I think I'm in the minority) ...
As Hillary pointed out last night, back in 2000, people chose someone they felt they could "have a beer with" and then later regretted it. I was kind of surprised she said that, because obviously she just hugely insulted a good part of the constituency (despite it being the truth, what she said). The problem with this country is that there is a strong anti-intellectual and anti-rational thinking trend, which has seemingly been holding sway since the 70's. (Remember back to when it was last "cool" to be into chemistry, or rocketry? Well, that needs to be "cool" again.) We had a very intelligent, rational candidate back in 2004, and we didn't elect him. We had a very intelligent, rational candidate back in 2000, and we didn't elect him either. Instead, a good portion of this country chose to re-elect a bumbling idiot that they could have a beer with...
There are also a couple of reviews of the candidates policies on space exploration here and here.
The Republican party has been so thoroughly colonized by the forces of ignorance and superstition that there is no viable choice on that side. Giuliani is probably the most enlightened candidate, but he is keeping quiet about science policy for fear of censure from the "I ain't descended from no monkey" constituency.
On the Democratic side, Senator Obama is the most problematic, but it mostly seems like nobody in his campaign thought to prepare any Science and Technology talking points for him. Offsetting his science education plan by de-funding NASA, though, is fairly dumb-assed and cowardly. Going after NASA to appear fiscally conservative has the stink of a focus-group.
If you go down the "Science Education" column in the Popular Mechanics "Geek the Vote" matrix Clinton and Edwards are the only ones making concrete policy statements, and Edwards edges out Clinton by having a somewhat broader vision (although they coincide on most points).
Edwards gets my (tentative) support because he appears to be the only candidate who is making Science and Technology policies part of his standard campaign recitation.
No, I didn't take it as criticism of the linking choices, don't worry...
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that "after 7+ years of faith-based government -- people are very interested in the science and technology policies of the candidates" (I myself obviously am, but I think I'm in the minority) ...
As Hillary pointed out last night, back in 2000, people chose someone they felt they could "have a beer with" and then later regretted it. I was kind of surprised she said that, because obviously she just hugely insulted a good part of the constituency (despite it being the truth, what she said). The problem with this country is that there is a strong anti-intellectual and anti-rational thinking trend, which has seemingly been holding sway since the 70's. (Remember back to when it was last "cool" to be into chemistry, or rocketry? Well, that needs to be "cool" again.) We had a very intelligent, rational candidate back in 2004, and we didn't elect him. We had a very intelligent, rational candidate back in 2000, and we didn't elect him either. Instead, a good portion of this country chose to re-elect a bumbling idiot that they could have a beer with...