April 30, 2008A debate about scienceI missed this during the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary, but with Oregon still a few weeks out, it's worth talking about. A group of scientists has proposed holding a debate between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama just on science and technology issues. It sure would beat a debate focussed on flag pins and phantom sniper fire. As it is, issues of science and technology, though they are some of the most important for the nation's future, get shallow treatment by candidates. Global warming, Internet infrastructure, data encryption, intellectual property law, patents and trademarks, net neutrality, NASA funding, evolution education, violent video games, and others are good topics for a debate. Let's have a debate now and another in the fall between John McCain and whoever winds up being the Democratic nominee. Does the old guy even know what e-mail is? Is he in the Ted Stevens tubes camp? Would you tune in for a debate grounded in science and technology? |
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[April 30, 2008 4:10 PM]
HenryI imagine the "old guy" knows more about technology than the "old woman". Hillary has little people to handle those type of things.
[April 30, 2008 4:22 PM]
Ed S.Might be nice to have a new crop of questions. I tried to watch one of the Clinton - Obama debates the other night. It wasn't their message that totally turned me off this time; it was the fact that the questions were the *same ones* that have been asked since the campaigns started last year. How many times am I going to hear what they have to say about Iraq?
I wish interviewing for my jobs were this easy. I could sit down one Saturday, pound out perfect answers for three or four questions, and never have to prep for interviews the rest of my life.
Clinton's 2-3 minute response about how she had fully clarified her position on some stupid ongoing campaign bicker between her and Obama's campaign was the final channel-flicker for me. Following the election, the fact that you said "dolphin" versus "marine mammal" isn't going to matter. The debates have turned into near-useless sound byte moments as-is, don't waste my time with this useless drivel.
So, yes to the sci/tech debate. I welcome the influx of new questions. (Though I've already made my decision.)
[April 30, 2008 4:22 PM]
c. trejbalShe's wrong on video game regulation anyway.
[April 30, 2008 5:26 PM]
DaveOf course she's wrong. All kids should have access to pornography and violence. (Sarcasm intended)
This permisive, liberal drivel is one of the biggest problems in society today. Numerous studies show correlations between video/media violence and aggressive behavior as well lower grades and diminished social skills.
[April 30, 2008 8:59 PM]
JoshOboy. A technology debate between Hillary and Obama. Dumb vs. Dumber
Obama was the guy who told Larry King on CNN -- asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers -- "We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that."
Hillary, on the other hand, didn't know how to operate a simple coffee machine today in Indiana on her carpool trip with a metal worker to show her concern for the gas crisis (flanked, of course, by two SUVs and followed by a multi-car police escort).
McCain was a navy pilot. Enough said.
[May 1, 2008 4:04 PM]
Josh"It sure would beat a debate focussed on flag pins and phantom sniper fire."
Focusing on silly things like obscure meanings of nonsense words instead of discussing issues wasn't a problem for the RT during the 2006 VA Senate campaign.
[May 1, 2008 11:09 PM]
DaveMr. Trejbal,
Could you elaborate on your post above. From reading the link, it leaves us to infer that you disagree with her position that these types of video games should not be available to children. Is that inference correct? If it is, is that your opinion, or is it representative of the institutional position of the Roanoke Times.
After reviewing the news reports about GTA 4, it appears that this game includes graphic sex and violence where in the player can have oral and anal sex with prostitutes and then kill them in many different ways, including beating them to death with a baseball bat.
Is it really your position that kids of any age should have unrestricted access to this type of material? If so, do you also believe that all restrictions on pornography should be lifted, allowing possession of porn by pesons of any age?
[May 1, 2008 11:57 PM]
c. trejbalNo, Dave, your inference is incorrect. A rating system already exists that warns parents and retailers what games are appropriate for minors of different ages.
When I post under my name, unless I say I am sharing the opinion of the editorial board, it is my own only.
[May 2, 2008 5:03 PM]
DaveYes Christian, the ratings system does already exist, but in the case of GTA IV, there is at least the appearance that the ratings board bowed to pressure from the game manufacturer and distributors by giving the game a lower rating than it deserves.
It received an M for mature rather than the more restrictive A for adults only. Why would the manufacturer care? Because corporate giants like Wal-Mart and Best Buy won't carry games rated 'A'.
I don't agree with Hilary about much, but in this case she is correct. More needs to be done to limit access to this kind of material, or at least to insure the integrity of the ratings system.
If a game that allows players to engage in graphic portrayals of oral and anal sex and then murder the sex partner don't deserve an adults only rating, what game does? According to the ESRB, this content does deserve an 'A' rating and should only be sold to persons 18 and older.
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/health_safety/video_game_rating_system.htm
However, the desire for higher sales apparently trumped their guidelines.
So I ask you, how are parents to rely on this existing ratings system for guidance when it can be so easily subverted. Furthermore, with its current rating, a minor can buy GTA IV without a parents knowledge, effectively circumventing the spirit and purpose of the ratings system.