Former general and presidential candidate Wesley Clark is going to be speaking on campus tomorrow night. I don't expect there to be a lot of question time at this, but I'm fairly good at getting a chance to ask questions at these things, so if anyone has a suggestion of a really good question to ask him, leave it in the comments, and I'll see what I can do.
More like this
In particular, what do you want to ask them pertaining to science? For instance, the following questions have recently been proposed:
There is a movement afoot to develop a framework for a
href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2007/12/lets_get_the_presidential_cand.php">Presidential
candidate debate on science. Bora has been
proposing
It goes without saying that questions are the basis of scientific research. But all too often, especially in the PR department, we focus on the findings and forget about the process that led to those findings.
The recent uptick in troll traffic here and at Orac's place got me thinking. Many of the trolls have been making unsophisticated attacks on the truth without actually stating a hypothesis. And that got me thinking even more.
Why is it so god damn hard for the Democrats to field a candidate that I don't feel dirty voting for?
Jamie,
I think the reason is that Democrats were frightened by consultants and the DC punditry throughout the 90's telling them that "America is a Conservative Nation" that led Democrats to push to the center, so the current party leaders are not as progressive as most progressives would like.
Also, I think the left has more of a purity bias. We scrutinize more and want perfect candidates. Every mistatement on Iraq, Iran, Choice, the environment, religion, etc, and the left goes nuts. I think the right has fewer litmus tests and in the end just wants an authoritarian to make them feel safe.
Why do all levels of goverment vigorously lend succor to cripples while crushing the able and productive?
What are the proper roles of the President and Congress in waging a war, from declaration to the end?
General Wesley Clark:
Can you please comment on the Three Laws of Politics:
(1) Get elected;
(2) Get re-elected;
(3) Don't get mad, get even.
Can you please comment on the Two Most Important Things in Politics:
(1) Money;
(2) I forget what the second one is.
[extra credit if he can identify the authors of either of these axiomatizations]
If the Democrats (or some other group advocating, as Wesley Clark does, redeployment or withdrawal from Iraq) were hypothetically in a position to directly set Iraq policy at this point and were to initiate withdrawing combat troops from Iraq,
what should be the proper U.S. policy toward Iraq after the troops have been withdrawn? Should there be "residual forces", and if so, what should the scale and mission of those forces be? What should be done with the "superbases"? What should the nature of any continued U.S. contact or influence with the Iraqi government be after the occupation?
(Note that after thinking about that one for a bit I'm not entirely sure it would be accurate to call Wesley Clark a withdrawal advocate at the current time, but the question stands just the same either way.)