Wake-up call for carnivores

My wife and I have been meatless for a long time now. It feels really good, and though we occasionally (once a month?) used to have fish/seafood, we are cutting that out entirely now. An eye-opening report in the NYT explains the global, environmental and economic impact of American's carnivorism.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Read it all.

Some people just don't understand the environmental impacts of the meat industry -- how much of our fresh water supplies are polluted and how much forest is burned simply to raise cattle. The toll is significant. It really can't be overstated. For those interested in sustainability and the relationship between oil and agriculture, the data is out there.

Bill and Hillary: Experienced!

A great Billary video from Lee Stranahan; it is hilarious:

Creationism by region

My rant from a while back about the South is now supplanted by this regional assessment of creationism:

"everything is dark-sided" Jesus freak special

I'm as sick as a dog, so it really hurt to watch this:

UPDATE: Now I feel really bad.

Frank Rich destroys Billary rationale

One of the principal (if not only) cards played by the Billary machine is the FUD-style reasoning: we don't know what we're going to get with Obama, while we do with Clinton. Also, they play up the experience card, despite the fact that Obama has more legislative experience than her (8 years in IL State Senate + 3 in US Senate > her 7 in US Senate), and being First Lady or a governor's wife (which she was for 19 of her 35 touted years of experience) should not be equivocated with being co-President or being co-governor.

Well, Frank Rich has decimated the first line of reasoning by pointing out the serious and lingering questions that remain un-investigated surrounding Bill's post-presidential affairs (not necessarily the extra-marital kind) and the funding of their presidential library by Saudis. This almost seems like an opening salvo to begin the actual "vetting" of Billary post-2000. Frank goes on to point out the utter inability of the Bill&Hill 2nd presidency to bring about change, something voters are crying out for, and the likelihood of stirring up the "vast right wing conspiracy" against them.

Furthermore, Hillary's lines about "experience" and being "tested" would not fare well against John McCain, whose actual life exploits make her experience and tests a bit of a satire.

Things are heating up...

Caroline Kennedy endorses Obama

Caroline Kennedy, daughter (and only surivivng child) of JFK, has the following endorsement printed in the NYT:

The New York Times
January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY
link

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”

Obama routs in SC: 55-27-18

Over a year ago, I threw my financial and rhetorical support behind Obama. He routed the competition last night: 55-27-18. Pundits who want to label him the "black candidate" will have to deal with some very inconvenient facts:

Here in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton was supported by about 3 in 10 women over all, the exit polls showed, hampering a candidacy that is depending on female support to win states. She received support from 4 in 10 white women and 2 in 10 black women. She had competed aggressively for their vote, particularly African-Americans to offset Mr. Obama’s advantages.

White voters under the age of 40 divided their support, with almost 40 percent for Mr. Obama, and about 3 in 10 each for Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton. Almost 80 percent of blacks under the age of 40 voted for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards divided white voters age 40 and older equally, with about 40 percent each, according to exit polls. Among older blacks, 80 percent supported Mr. Obama.

Basically, the older white voters went for Hillary and Edwards. These are people who were raised in a Segregated South, so I'm not surprised. I just hope that Obama can survive the Clinton machine that is getting dirtier and dirtier as we move on. He has promised to transcend bitter politics, so it is difficult for him to respond to attacks without seeming to attack himself. I think he's balancing this act very well. Vote Obama '08!

Neato Bandito

Alright, so this guy compiled the correlation between facebook network book rankings & college SAT scores to try to show what some of the "dumber" and "smarter" colleges are reading. I was happy to see that neither UF nor VT had the Bible at #1 or #2. See how your school stacks up, and play around with the data at his site, it's neat.

NYT endorses McCain

I guess great minds think alike; the NYT has endorsed McCain on the GOP side. But apparently great minds don't always think alike; the NYT has endorsed the Billary machine on the Dem side, and it seems that while they are almost apologetic in tone with respect to Mr. Obama, all they cite are HRC campaign talking points:

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

They seem to employ only FUD-style reasoning here: we don't know what we're going to get with Obama, while we do with Clinton. Also, they play up the experience card, despite the fact that Obama has more legislative experience than her, and being First Lady or a governor's wife should not be equivocated with being co-President or being co-governor. Why is she ready to be president right now? Simply because she lived in the White House with one until 1/20/2001?

Contrast: "Biblical Science" v. Science

This is fantastic:

(H/T: PZ)

McCain - a choice I could live with?

Of all the GOP candidates, the one I am most intuitively afraid of, in terms of electability, and concomitantly could stand to live with, must the GOP win the White House again, is John McCain. It looks like, from the NRO's Levin, the right-wing of the party disliking him is sure evidence to support my feeling that he would be easier to live with than any other Republican. Admittedly, he's said and done a lot of dumb things on the campaign trail (Christian Nation, Commencement speech at Liberty, 100 years in Iraq...), but I think a great deal of this is pandering that obscures who he really is, and his integrity on refusal to pander too much on issues like the Confederate Flag.

Below, I'm going to post all of Levin's tirade:

The Real McCain Record
Obstacles in the way of conservative support.

By Mark R. Levin

There’s a reason some of John McCain's conservative supporters avoid discussing his record. They want to talk about his personal story, his position on the surge, his supposed electability. But whenever the rest of his career comes up, the knee-jerk reply is to characterize the inquiries as attacks.

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

• McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.
• McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.
• McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.
• McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.
• McCain-Reimportation of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).
• And McCain’s stated opposition to the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts was largely based on socialist, class-warfare rhetoric — tax cuts for the rich, not for the middle class. The public record is full of these statements. Today, he recalls only his insistence on accompanying spending cuts.
• As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
• McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.
• And then there’s the McCain defense record.
• His supporters point to essentially one policy strength, McCain’s early support for a surge and counterinsurgency. It has now evolved into McCain taking credit for forcing the president to adopt General David Petreaus’s strategy. Where’s the evidence to support such a claim? Moreover, Iraq is an important battle in our war against the Islamo-fascist threat. But the war is a global war, and it most certainly includes the continental United States, which, after all, was struck on 9/11. How does McCain fare in that regard?
• McCain-ACLU — the unprecedented granting of due-process rights to unlawful enemy combatants (terrorists).
• McCain has repeatedly called for the immediate closing of Guantanamo Bay and the introduction of al-Qaeda terrorists into our own prisons — despite the legal rights they would immediately gain and the burdens of managing such a dangerous population.
• While McCain proudly and repeatedly points to his battles with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had to rebuild the U.S. military and fight a complex war, where was McCain in the lead-up to the war — when the military was being dangerously downsized by the Clinton administration and McCain’s friend, former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen? Where was McCain when the CIA was in desperate need of attention? Also, McCain was apparently in the dark about al-Qaeda like most of Washington, despite a decade of warnings.
• My fingers are crossed that at the next debate, either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will find a way to address McCain’s record. (Mike Huckabee won’t, as he is apparently in the tank for him.)

Mark R. Levin served as chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese in the Reagan administration, and he is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host.

So it seems to me that if McCain can be so successfully attacked from the right, he is one of the better GOP candidates. Not that I would prefer him over Obama or Hillary.

Experience in the NYT by Kristof

Someone besides me (Kristof in the NYT) has decided to invoke Lincoln in talking about the "experience card" and Obama in presidential campaign politics.

And both Herbert and Krugman point out the failures of Reaganomics and the apparent arrival of the second Gilded Age beneath our noses.

"Muslims cannot be good Americans" - a dialog

I'm having a hilarious email exchange with a group of Christians over a dumb email that has been circulated called "Muslims cannot be good Americans." The latest victim, Jerry, has written me back

Jerry,

I'm not sure if you got the email response I sent to Margaret before you composed yours or not, but I think mine makes clear that I was making a rhetorical point. My responses were SUPPOSED to be absurd, just as the original email purporting that Muslims cannot be good citizens was absurd. Read it below if you missed it before:

Deep Thoughts (with Jack Handey): Oil, v2

In the first installment of deep thoughts on oil, I tried to distance myself from a claim that we're on the right side of the Hubbert curve with respect to oil production.

Even the most optimistic scenarios have the right-side of the curve pushed out to 2040 or so:

Now, as I pointed out in the first installment, along with the higher price of oil comes new methodologies of extraction, like shale oil. These same sorts of development may push the availability of oil out for another 500 or 1000 years, but the question/problem is the rate of production versus rate of consumption. At the risk of sounding like cursed Cassandra, I now have a few more authoritative voices to back up my fears: consider The Economist's article this week on C. de Margerie, CEO of Total Oil.

Mr de Margerie's opinions also stand out, at least within the ranks of senior oilmen. Last year he declared that the world would never be able to increase its output of oil from the current level of 85m barrels per day (b/d) to 100m b/d, let alone the 120m b/d that energy analysts predict will be needed by 2030. That is in stark contrast with the view of Rex Tillerson, the chief executive of Total's larger American rival, Exxon Mobil, who argues that the world is neither short of oil, nor likely to be any time soon. It also contradicts the line of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which claims that the only thing that prevents its members from producing more oil is the fear that no one will buy it.
...
Mr de Margerie is careful to point out that he is not predicting “peak oil” in a geological sense. His definition of peak oil is “when supply cannot meet demand”. He believes that the fuel that the world needs to keep its cars and factories running may well be out there, somewhere. It is just getting harder and harder to extract, for technical as well as political reasons. For one thing, he points out, the output of existing fields is declining by 5m-6m b/d every year. That means that oil firms have to find lots of new fields just to keep production at today's levels. Moreover, the sorts of fields that Western oil firms are starting to develop, in very deep water, or of nearly solid, tar-like oil, are ever more technically challenging. There is not enough skilled labour and fancy equipment in the world, he believes, to ramp up production as quickly as people hope.
...
Perhaps the best measure of Mr de Margerie's gloomy outlook for the oil industry is his eagerness to get Total into nuclear power. Though he says he is not about to increase Total's token 1% stake in Areva, France's nuclear-engineering giant, he clearly sees nuclear energy as part of Total's future. Why would an oil firm want to enter such a controversial field, unless it feels that it is already out on a limb?

Although I doubt we'll see doomsday scenarios like this one playing out any time soon, it is necessary to be mindful of how many other predictions about oil have been wrong -- like how, back in August, experts declared it would never go up to $100/barrel. I'm ready to buy that Honda hydrogen car & power station now.

Hillary is getting dirty(cubed)

Nevada was Hillary dirty³:

1. Dirty
2. Dirty
3. Dirty
   

Good news is, Obama probably still won more delegates.

Atheist aphorisms

Below the fold I've assembled some good short quotes and aphorisms in general for bumper stickers and T-shirts relating to religion and science.

Top Fifty Atheist T-Shirt and Bumper Sticker Aphorisms

1. Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers
2. Honk If Your Religious Beliefs Make You An Asshole
3. Intelligent Design Makes My Monkey Cry
4. Too Stupid to Understand Science? Try Religion.
5. There's A REASON Why Atheists Don't Fly Planes Into Buildings
6. "Worship Me or I Will Torture You Forever. Have a Nice Day."­ God.
7. God Doesn't Kill People. People Who Believe in God Kill People.
8. If There is No God, Then What Makes the Next Kleenex Pop Up?
9. He's Dead. It's Been 2,000 years. He's Not Coming Back. Get OVER It Already!
10. "All religion is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry." Edgar Allen Poe.
11. Viva La Evolución!
12. Actually, If You Look It Up, The Winter Solstice Is The Reason For The Season
13. I Wouldn't Trust Your God Even If He Did Exist
14. Cheeses Is Lard. Argue With THAT If You Can.
15. People Who Don't Want Their Beliefs Laughed at Shouldn't Have Such Funny Beliefs
16. Jesus is Coming? Don't Swallow That.
17. Threatening Children With Hell Is FUN!
18. GOD - APPLY DIRECTLY TO FOREHEAD!
19. Jesus Told Me Republicans SUCK
20. God + Whacky Tobacky = Platypus
21. God Doesn't Exist. So, I Guess That Means No One Loves You.
22. When the Rapture Comes, We'll Get Our Country Back!
23. Q. How Do We Know the Holy Ghost Was Catholic? A. He Used the Rhythm Method Instead of a Condom.
24. You Say "Heretic" Like It Was a BAD Thing
25. I Love Christians. They Taste Like Chicken.
26. Science: It Works, Bitches.
27. "Intelligent Design" Helping Stupid People Feel Smart Since 1987
28. I Found God Between The Sheets
29. I Gave Up Superstitious Mumbo Jumbo For Lent
30. My Flying Monkey Can Beat Up Your Guardian Angel
31. Every Time You Play With Yourself, God Kills a Kitten
32. If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?
33. Praying Is Politically Correct Schizophrenia
34. ALL Americans Are African Americans
35. I Forget - Which Day Did God Make All The Fossils?
36. I Was An Atheist Until The Hindus Convinced Me That I Was God
37. The Spanish Inquisition: The Original Faith-based Initiative
38. If we were made in his image, when why aren't humans invisible too?
39. JESUS SAVES....You From Thinking For Yourself
40. How Can You Disbelieve in Evolution If You Can't Even Define It?
41. Q. How Can You Tell That Your God is Man-made? A. If He Hates All the Same People You Do.
42. Every Time You See a Rainbow, God is Having Gay Sex
43. I Went to Public School in Kansas and All I Got Was This Lousy T-shirt and a Poor Understanding of the Scientific Method.
44. WWJD = We Won. Jesus Died.
45. The Family That Prays Together is Brainwashing the Children
46. Oh, Look, Honey Another Pro-lifer For War
47. Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony
48. God is Unavailable Right Now. Can I Help You?
49. "When Lip Service to Some Mysterious Deity Permits Bestiality on Wednesday and Absolution on Sundays, Cash Me Out." Frank Sinatra.
50. No Gods. No Mullets.

The following I pulled from the comments section:

1. What schools need is a moment of science.
2. The last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake.
3. "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." (Treaty with Tripoli, June 7, 1797)
4. "I cherish everyone's right to their religious beliefs, no matter how comical." Herman Melville
5. Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.
6. Apes evolved from creationists
7. If we're all God's children, then what makes Jesus so special?
8. Jesus saves! The rest of us use credit cards.
9. Militant Agnostic: I don't know, AND NEITHER DO YOU!
10. Born right the first time, thanks!
11. Reality > Belief
12. There's a Sucker born every minute, but the real money is made from those Born Again.

And from here:

1. "If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." Thomas Szasz
2. "Beware the man of one book." St. Thomas Aquinas
   
3. "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell
4. "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon
5. "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." Napoleon
   
6. "The ink of the scholar is holier than the blood of the martyr." Prophet Muhammad
7. "Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?" Nietzsche
8. "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." Nietzsche
9. "In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact with reality at any point." Nietzsche
10. "If god created us in his image we have certainly returned the compliment." Voltaire
11. "It is hard to free fools from chains they revere." Voltaire
    
12. "Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." Voltaire
13. "The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool." Voltaire
14. "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty." Thomas Jefferson
15. "If you understand everything, you must be misinformed." Japanese proverb
16. "The believer is happy; the doubter is wise." Hungarian proverb
17. "Religion is not merely the opium of the masses; it's the cyanide." Tom Robbins
18. "Nothing overshadows truth so much as authority." Leon B. Alberti
    
19. "To use the term blind faith, is to use an adjective needlessly." Julian Ruck
20. "Nothing brings people together more, than mutual hatred." Henry Rollins
21. "The church tries to save sinners, but science seeks to stop their manufacture." Elbert Hubbard
22. "Heresy is a cradle; orthodoxy a coffin." Robert G. Ingersoll
23. "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." Peter Ustinov
24. "The death of dogma is the birth of morality." Immanuel Kant
25. "If you would be a real seeker after truth...doubt, as far as possible, all things." Descartes
    

Nice.

The GOP & race

If the muck of Ron Paul's racist nonsense isn't a clear enough demonstration of the fundamental differences between the GOP & the party with a black man and a woman as its frontrunners, then perhaps Mike Huckabee's support of the Confederacy is (and don't forget his lovely and telling rant about aligning the Constitution with "the Word of the Living God.") Or, maybe the right wing's reaction to this...whatever recent example you choose, the GOP has a race image problem, if not a race problem.

Science Debate 2008

This is probably old news to some/most, but I wanted to highlight the Science Debate 2008 site and cause, as it's definitely in line with my reasoning for my YouTube question and the link to firstfreedomfirst's "Sound Science" ad.

Here's a nice argument from an op-ed in the Wichita Eagle that I think summarizes the issues well:

Presidential race needs science debate

Science and technology are central to many of America's most pressing challenges and controversies: Climate change. Energy independence. Stem cell research. Nuclear proliferation. And on and on.

You wouldn't know that, though, by listening to the presidential debates so far.

If these questions do come up, they're often swiftly dispatched with a boilerplate answer or two.

Too often, science is pushed to the sidelines of presidential debates to make way for presumably weightier topics, such as whether Hillary Clinton is really likable or whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO.

In one forum, Mike Huckabee responded to a question about a proposed Mars mission by suggesting that Clinton should be the first passenger.

OK. But can we get serious for a moment?

The next president faces difficult, historic decisions in science and technology that will shape our country's future for decades to come.

That's why voters should support a bipartisan effort now gaining steam to hold a presidential science debate.

A grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 is pushing for a televised debate sometime after the Feb. 5 primaries to plumb the candidates' views on energy and the environment, technological and scientific innovation, and medicine.

Organizers say the purpose is simply to acknowledge the overriding importance of science and technology to our nation's prosperity and future.

That future is hardly assured.

A recent report from the National Academies of Science, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," reported that the "scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength."

Just a few examples:

• The United States is now a net importer of high-technology products.

• In 2003, American 15-year-olds ranked 24th out of 40 countries in an examination of students' ability to use mathematical skills to solve real-world problems.

• China and India are leaving the United States behind in producing new engineering doctorates.

For the most part, the candidates have offered few specifics about science policy or they've dodged the questions altogether.

Why? Because science isn't one of the issues the bases of either party are fired up about right now. And candidates aren't always eager to talk about these complex issues.

No one expects them to be experts on nuclear physics or the intricacies of evolutionary theory. But voters deserve to know whether a candidate has some scientific literacy, is comfortable discussing and evaluating technological issues, and employs good science and standards of evidence in decision-making.

Among the questions that could be asked at a debate:

Is it realistic for the United States to achieve energy independence? How do we get there?

What is the government's role in fostering innovation and the new generation of alternative energy technology?

How can our schools better prepare students to compete in science and mathematics?

Should creationism and intelligent design be taught in our schools?

How do you assess the evidence for climate change, and are specific measures needed to control greenhouse gases?

What is the future of NASA's manned space program?

How can we continue to attract the world's best and brightest scientists to study and live here?

Democrats charge that under President Bush, scientists' advice has been censored and politicized. Is that true? If so, what would you do to restore the integrity of science?

Americans deserve clear, specific answers to these and a host of other questions.

Admittedly, a science debate will be difficult to pull off amid the tight election-year schedule. Don't expect the candidates to jump at the opportunity. But a growing number of leading science organizations, university presidents, business leaders and politicians are endorsing the idea.

The timing is right for citizens to make a difference.

To get involved, check out the group's Web site at sciencedebate2008.com and sign the petition. At the very least, let the candidates and media know you want a more meaningful discussion of science policy.

We can't afford not to talk about science and innovation. America's future depends on it.

Randy Scholfield is an Eagle editorial writer. His column appears on Fridays. Reach him at 316-268-6545 or rscholfield@wichitaeagle.com.

Indeed.

Raking the coals

If the original exposé or the last batch of Ron Paul's racist muck wasn't enough for you, TNR has dug up (and raked) more. Especially important are the newsletter's authorship excerpts at the bottom of the article.

I wonder how much this will affect his poll numbers. Obviously, no one thinks he was going to be president whether this came out or not, so it's more interesting as pure social analysis to see how his supporters' minds function to attempt to justify this.

The "high negatives" and "electability" cards are real issues

Barack still has the best favorability/unfavorability ratings of the three front-runners:

CNN's latest has McCain 54-29 (+25), Obama 55-28 (+27), and HRC at 53-39 (+14).

Also, on "electabililty": Democrats think Hillary is more electable than Barack, 47-35 (6 for Edwards, 12 had no opinion). I suspect those numbers will continue to change after Edwards drops out and as the GOP machine cranks up on "Hillarycare" and &c.

Ron Paul & racism

Although I mentioned on 1/2/08 some of the Neo-Confederate nonsense that Paul spouted on MTP with Russert, I didn't think it would get this bad: newsletters dug up by TNR that are just plain disgusting that have Paul's name on them. Now, his campaign has of course denied association between itself and the newsletters that went out under his name (which itself raises a lot of questions -- how could he be unaware of these newsletters, given they went out for a decade under his name and contained some inflammatory stuff?), but the dissociation isn't as strong as it seems:

Some responses came from more conventional libertarians who found ways to justify Paul’s writings and the acceptance of contributions from people such as Don Black. By finding excuses for Paul’s acts, these so-called libertarians help blur the line which has separated such racism and anti-Semitism as attitudes which have been considered unacceptable in our society. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress.

What is also remarkable is that upon closer examination Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservativism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his other views. As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America. Ron Paul’s version of the Constitution is contradicted in the writings of the founding fathers, many court decisions, and in the view of most historians.

Ron Paul was interviewed by Reason following the publication of the article in The New Republic. Dismissing this all as “old stuff” or “political stuff” is no more reassuring than the statements that the material in Paul’s newsletters was written by someone else. Jim Crow laws and the Holocaust are also “old stuff” but this doesn’t make them something which should just be ignored.

Libertarians have no excuse accepting this half-ass as their man; he is obviously a poor representation of libertarian philosophy, some call him a "doughface liberatarian." His version of morality is quite skewed.

Morality article in NYT Magazine by Pinker

Steven Pinker has an amazing article in the NYT Magazine on morality. Go see for yourself.

Hillary the uniter

...of the GOP:

Her electability problems couldn't be more plain: to win in November, Democrats must do better with college-educated men and with independents, the two groups where Obama is strongest and Hillary is weakest. Then there's the slight problem of hatred for the Clintons being the only thing the fractious GOP base can agree on this year. Sadly for her supporters, Hillary is indeed as much of a unifier as Obama—but of Republicans.

Sounds familiar, eh? As I've said, I think Obama's ethics reform, transparency and integrity in government actions are one of my greatest motivators to vote for him. Also, I just think that Hillary faces a serious challenge with her consistently high negatives, (55% unfavorability in Rasmussen Reports) in getting GOP crossovers and independents; Republican voters are most comfortable with Obama, and he thus faces no such problem. The "electability" card, then, makes more sense with him than with her...

At the risk of engaging in the never-ending political "narrative," people from my generation seem more cynical towards "insiders" in politics, and the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty really turns us off. The question is how extensive this effect is across demographics. We'll know on Feb. 5th, I guess.

Gloom and doom

Want some free advice from a professor of economics?

• US recession and global economic slowdown in 2008
• Central banks are behind the curve and Fed easing will not prevent a US recession
• Severe financial losses (over $1 trillion) and systemic risk forthe financial system
• Recoupling of the rest of the world with a global economic slowdown
• Cash is king: avoid a variety of risky assets
• Further sharp and persistent re-pricing of risk
• The credit boom/bubble party is over!

Nouriel Roubini was among the first to see the oncoming recession, and both he and Krugman, another economist whose prescience is well-documented, are bearish and in general agreement that house prices have a long way left to fall. For our part, my spouse and I will be waiting to buy...

I wonder, if the worst-case-scenario plays out, how stable our jobs will be. We work in education, and generally speaking, this area of work is recession-proof, so we ought to be okay...

The clusterfuc* that is election day

If you really want to lose all faith in the American political system, read this.

"Sound Science" ad from firstfreedomfirst

Sounds like a good question to me, a lot like the one I submitted to the CNN-Youtube debate:

I love this cartoon

From David Horsey, a nice take on the Obama experience issue:

Barack's approach to progress works

Krugman and others have been concerned that Barack's plan for change is too naive and compromising. It seems they have some reality to deal with.

Thanks for the economic train-wreck, GOP

This is what we have to reap after 7 years of sowing "greed gone wild" laissez-faire economics:


From Chris at Americablog:

The greenback bounced on lows not seen since the Nixon years (the trend continues in 2008), the price of gas both per barrel and at the pump hit new highs, discrepancy between rich and poor increased, health care costs jumped yet again and housing collapsed to lows last witnessed under Bush I. As we enter 2008, the first day of trading on Wall Street was the worst in 25 years. On the same day, gold hit an all time high and oil crossed the critical $100 per barrel mark.

Does anyone trust Bush to fix this? Yeah, me neither.

My prediction: the DJIA will hit its lowest level since a year ago -- around 12,000. Of course, I'm no economist...but this guy is, and he sees big trouble ahead. Now it's Krugman's turn to chime in. If you want to vote on facebook on the state of the economy, click here.

This guy thinks there is a speculation bubble in alternative energy markets. He lays out more here. All I can say is, "I hope not," because I really want to see solar/wind/nuclear take off and soar.

38-30-29

Well, that went well. [PS: This breakdown is astounding -- Barack won across nearly every category, from gender to education level to income to party ID to ideology...]

I like what Mark Kleiman said:

Unfortunately, although Obama's edge over Edwards and Clinton was nearly as big as Huckabee's over Romney, some media outlets are sticking to the "close race" narrative that came out of the entrance polls. (And wasn't even accurate about them; Obama had as big an edge there as he did in the final count.)

And Steven Teles:

Obama won Iowa, very convincingly. In fact, had the race been run a few weeks later, he probably would have won even more, given his strength with college-age voters...

For those reasons, I think that, while some of the Republican noise machine will be directed against Obama--to believe otherwise is folly--it will be hard for conservatives to gin up quite the same fervor against Obama that they could against HRC. Republican voters won't have quite the same fire in the belly to turn out to vote and encourage their friends to do so. I now believe that the Republican vote in the general election, if Obama wins, will be considerably depressed (both because of Obama, because of the lack of a consensus candidate on the Republican side, and because of continued conservative distaste for how Republicans have governed)...

Finally, I think that Hillary and Edwards need to think very carefully before unloading with both barrels against Obama over the next few weeks, in an effort to get themselves back in the running. The Democrats just can't afford to damage their likely nominee via friendly fire. If they can get back in the game by playing this fairly straight, fine. But the importance (both for the Democrats, and as I have argued before, for the Republicans, over the long run, as well) to get the Republicans out of the White House is just too great to risk damaging the party's nominee. Party leaders should begin to make this clear, as soon as they can.

Amen to that.

As I've said, I think Obama's ethics reform, transparency and integrity in government actions are one of my greatest motivators to vote for him. More on that at the bottom. Also, I just think that Hillary faces a serious challenge with her consistently high negatives, (55% unfavorability in Rasmussen Reports) in getting GOP crossovers and independents; Republican voters are most comfortable with Obama, and he thus faces no such problem. The "electability" card, then, makes more sense with him than with her...

Here's other stuff I've written re Obama and my support for him since a year ago.

From Obama's "fact check" site:

FACT: OBAMA HAS MADE A HABIT OF DISCLOSING MORE THAN IS REQUIRED, INCLUDING HIS BUNDLERS, EARMARKS, TAX RETURNS AND LEGAL CLIENTS...

Obama Committed to Disclose the Names of Bundlers. In 2007, Obama committed to name people who bundle campaign contributions. [Los Angeles Times, 2/9/07]

Obama Went One Step Further Than Other Candidates, Disclosed The Amount Of Money That His Bundlers Were Raising. "Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Tuesday disclosed the amounts his very top fund-raisers -- called bundlers -- are pulling in for his presidential campaign...Obama is disclosing more information than chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is willing to reveal about the amounts her top players are raising." [Chicago Sun-Times, 11/14/07]

Public Citizen: Obama's Bundling List "Would Rank The Best." "In terms of just breaking out the amounts raised by superbundlers, compared with the other candidates, Obama's list 'would rank the best,' said Taylor Lincoln, research director for Public Citizen, a watchdog group tracking big dollar campaign fund-raising." [Chicago Sun-Times, 11/14/07]

Obama Was the Only Presidential Candidate to Release His Income Tax Returns. The AP reported, "In addition to filing financial disclosures, another common practice in presidential campaigns is the release of income tax returns. But so far this year, only Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has released his 2006 tax returns." [AP, 5/15/07; ABCNews, 5/15/07]

Obama Reported All Clients On PFD, Providing More Disclosure Than Required. In 1998, the Chicago Sun-Times reported on lawmakers who did not disclose their firms' client. The Sun-Times wrote, "The state form does not require that information, and he refused to provide it to the center, citing attorney-client privilege. Other attorney-lawmakers, such as Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), reported a full list of clients. 'My assumption is whenever there is a potential conflict of interest, my constituents have a right to know,' Obama told the Sun-Times." [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/29/98]

2007: Obama Disclosed His Earmark Requests. On June 21, 2007, Obama disclosed the earmark projects that he had requested for fiscal year 2008. [Obama Release, 6/21/07]

Chicago Sun-Times: Applaud Obama And Others For "The Courage To Disclose Every Earmark Request." The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "As valuable as it has already been to see the earmarks and their sponsors at the subcommittee stage, it's even more valuable to see the requests from members before they even make it that far. That's why we applaud Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel and GOP Representatives Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk for having the courage to disclose every earmark request, whether successful or not. The sooner the public can start scrutinizing the earmarks -- which are, after all, demands for taxpayers to fund specific projects -- the sooner it can start separating the wheat from the chaff. We encourage every member of Congress to do the same. The more glare, the more scrutiny, the better the process will work." [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/27/07]

...AND WOULD BE THE DEMOCRAT MOST COMMITED TO TRANSPARENCY

Reason Foundation: Obama The Only Democrat Who Signed The Oath Of Presidential Transparency. The Reason Foundation wrote, "Meet the only three would-be chief execs who will dare to tell you how the government spends your money...The Oath of Presidential Transparency, a project spearheaded by the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes the print and online editions of reason. Joining together three dozen diverse groups ranging from the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons to the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the voter-rights outfit Velvet Revolution, the Oath provides voters with a crystal-clear understanding of the candidates' priorities when it comes to government spending...'Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view,' says Sen. Obama, whose role in creating FFAT can't be overstated. 'This historic law will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington and ensure that our government is transparent and accountable to the American people. And I will be proud to fully implement and enforce this law as president.'" [Reason Foundation, 8/24/07]

Sunlight Foundation: Obama Was A Leader On Government Transparency, Willingness To Talk About The Issue Demonstrated Commitment. Ellen Miller wrote on her Sunlight Foundation blog, "Given the fact that Obama is a leader on government transparency issues in the Senate now, his willingness to talk about these issues demonstrates his commitment to them and his understanding that the public strongly favors more transparency by the government." [Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation, 6/26/07]

Public Citizen: Obama Would Be The Most Active Advocate For Good Government. TPM Election Central reported, "Craig Holman, the ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen, tells us the group endorses all the principles in Obama's speech. 'These are all things we've been advocating for several years now,' he says. 'Obama has been working on many of these reforms for the last year.' Asked if this meant Obama was really better than the other Dems on good-government issues, Holman said: 'Certainly in terms of his active roles. I would expect many of the Democratic candidates to endorse similar proposals. But Senator Obama has been actively working on these since even before he considered running for President.'" [TPM Election Central, 6/22/07]

After the seemingly-endless corruption and scandal fatigue of the past 7 years, this is what America needs (and wants).

Cohen is a dumbass

Somebody get a professional to start writing for the papers again. Please.

Keep in mind that Cohen is slashing at Obama for being disingenuous, all the while he himself is wrong.

(re: Cohen's awful column)

Also:

John Edwards has that great line about the Democratic field being an “embarrassment of riches” and the GOP field just plain being an embarrassment.

I like it.

PS: I'm still a little worried about Obama sometimes, but I really like him on so many issues of ethics and reform, and I so very much want to end the dynasty-oligarchy Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton meme, that I'm willing to overlook some of his centrist nonsense. This stuff will definitely bring him in more Independents & GOPs, but he has to be careful.

Ron Paul: being a creationist wasn't bad enough

Finding out that Ron Paul is a creationist is not nearly so morally repulsive as his neo-confederate rhetoric on MTP.

They'll love him for it here in Jesusland, of course.

DA denies affair, confirms idiocy

Do you believe him?

E-mails from Rosenthal to his secretary, Kerry Stevens, surfaced last month as part of a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Harris County Sheriff's Office.

None of the e-mails are explicit, but they contain the phrase "I love you" more than a dozen times, and Rosenthal asks Stevens to let him hold her.

Rosenthal has said he is not having an affair with Stevens. He said he had an affair with her in the 1980s when he was married to his first wife, but said the relationship did not lead to his divorce. Rosenthal said he told his current wife about the affair before hiring Stevens when he took office in 2000.

...me neither.