When you have a few minutes, check this out. I hope you enjoy it! (If this doesn’t play on your computer, try this link.)
(Many thanks to the talented folks at Gyro Worldwide, Inc. and Backseat Conceptions.)
Here’s how you can take action–it’s SO simple and important. Spread the word if the spirit moves you!
And, how would YOU reply to these questions? Leave a response, below, for thousands to read and react to. Let’s get these parties started!
ScienceDebate2008’s 14 Questions for the Presidential Candidates: (tell the candidates you want them to address these issues via a debate and written replies to these questions)
Seven Questions for the Congressional Candidates: (plug in your zip code to pester your local candidates to answer the questions…and see how some have already answered)
Find your candidates,
ask where they stand.
LOL! You’re my hero, Darlene! Keep fighting the good fight!
Impressive, entertaining, and informative! Great comical way to present the issues and raise awareness to the public & our politicians. Gooooo Darlene!
A very entertaining way to address a very important issue – thanks for your efforts!
Dears Darlene..,
Nice to see an interesting article.
Great fun video on the supremely important topics of science education, funding and public awaeness. Superstition and fear cannot provide the solutions to our present energy, environmental, educational and economic crisis. Only science can research, discover and impliment answers to our most pressing problems. Yet the candidates are still trying to avoid dealing with scientific issues. We cannot let them get away with this. Go Darlene.
John Reitter
Bart gets a good discussion going on the framing of the 14 questions. Sees a biased slant and isn’t shy about explaining why here http://bartacus.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Bart. And here’s Shawn Otto’s (one of the founders of the Science Debate) response: Good discussion, interesting post.
The questions were reviewed and refined by all the non-partisan groups signing, in multiple phone and email discussions, and then run past all their subgroups, and then after that, run past a major DC 501c3 attorney for impartiality, and then revised per his recommendations, and the the revisions he approved were run back by all the signer organizations. It’s very easy to read an agenda into something when you suspect someone is slanted and then go looking for confirmation. This is in fact applying one’s own agenda.
For example, the climate change wording was initially something like “The National Academies has said that human-caused climate change is…” and we quoted them then posed the question what should be done. But we changed it to the current wording at the insistence of our more conservative signers, so it’s ironic he’s criticizing us for that of all things. The partisan political questions in congress are not over whether it is happening, but whether it is human-caused. We do not take a position on that (or any other issue), only that it is occurring and of the proposed options, we ask what the candidate thinks should be done, or whether something else should be done, which should be instructive. Our agenda is to promote the discussion, not to push particular solutions.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. 🙂 Cheers! Sandra. R.