I wanted to find out if anyone has caught subliminal advertising like this so far. I think it is something the Obama supporters should be alert to, since it can be very effective to make up any minds of the independent voters out there who have not yet committed to either candidate. We know from previous elections how effective such subliminal advertising is.
I am posting a link to a web page by the organizers of Science Debate 2008. They originally scheduled several debate venues and times along with invitations to all the Presidential candidates to debate these key questions about their commitment to the role of science and technology in solving very big issues.
All the candidates either flatly declined or ignored the invitations, apparently because they felt the topics were too specialized or not general enough to be of interest. Whatever the reason, these questions that were to be considered are too important to ignore. Here they are: http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=35
I recommend that everyone look over these questions and start to pester the candidates with them until we get an idea about their policy positions. These questions relate to the very quality of life in this country and how we can balance the resources we have to solving some big problems. The Obama campaign has these questions now, and needs to address them soon.
I thought the secularists out there would like to know about one action available to them. That is to make a statement about separation of church and state to all political candidates on the ballot they will be voting. I am a member of the Brights' Net, and their action group has provided to me post cards pre-printed with a message to send to the candidates of my choice. This message is not to promote the Brights, but merely to give the simplest expression to the common cause that unites us within the Secularists for Obama.
In view of possible action group controls, plus the limits that apply to nonprofit organizations in political campaigns, I cannot repeat the message and will only provide my own short summary in my own words: "I am in a position to vote, and I want to vote. But I wonder if politicians know voters like me can even vote. I am a citizen with a naturalistic worldview. I care about the separation of church and state, and I am concerned about what has happened to that separation in recent years. I will be listening to what you say during the election season, and if you are not speaking about the issues important to me, I cannot cast a vote for you. So let me hear you speaking up on those issues."
You may be a member of other groups with similar goals, such as the Secular Coalition, etc. If so, and if they do not have such a politician contact plan, please feel free to express yourself, and feel free to use any part of my own summary.
I am tired of hearing how solar energy is too weak a source of alternative energy because of price, speed and scalabilty. So when I saw this article about making solar power plants on a utility-scale size, I was astounded. It includes a sophisticated heliostat and the knowledge to work on-site to develop precision-engineered equipment on much lass acreage than before. The huge parabolic mirrors that were so unworkable before are now history, and no less than Google is financing the development of this technology.
Check out this link and see if it looks as good to you too: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/10/03431/0012
I saw this item posted about an ABC News report concerning how many high school science teachers are committed to teaching creationism as an "alternative theory" to Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. I won't dwell on the point of the article except to say that the creationists are getting a small hold in the public school science classes and all they have is an intelligent design concept not proved in any verifiable way. This is frightening to me.
I am posting excerpts from the article:
ABC News reports on the findings of a study that concluded 16% of U.S. science teachers are Creationists, and that, disturbingly, one in eight are teaching creationism as a valid science:
Despite a court-ordered ban on the teaching of creationism in U.S. schools, about one in eight high-school biology teachers still teach it as valid science, a survey reveals. And, although almost all teachers also taught evolution, those with less training in science -- and especially evolutionary biology -- tend to devote less class time to Darwinian principles... ...The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
...The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2,000 high-school science teachers across the U.S. in 2007. Of the 939 who responded, 2 percent said they did not cover evolution at all, with the majority spending between 3 and 10 classroom hours on the subject.
However, a quarter of the teachers also reported spending at least some time teaching about creationism or intelligent design. Of these, 48 percent -- about 12.5 percent of the total survey -- said they taught it as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species".
