Our President is an Astro-Physicist

Great Debates
41

I’m with BA.

For a million bucks, I can perform some pretty shady shenanigans regarding the orbits of certain outer solar system satellites.

You guys startin’ to see why Philosphr’s mind leapt to astrophysicists as the example of the incorruptible scientist? The biologists studying whether cigarettes cause cancer, well, everybody want’s a piece of them. However, Big Tobacco has yet to offer me a dime.

sigh I’m forced to subsist on the salary of a mere graduate student . . .well, that plus all the money NASA pays me to keep quiet about about the moon landing hoax and the face on M—

Oops.

42

Actually, this is an example I use when accused of being part of the Moon Hoax coverup. I can make a fortune as a professional astronomer (and debunker) by selling out to Fox and claiming NASA faked Apollo. The fact that I don’t says something, dontcha think?

43

dude wrote:

In terms of U.S. domestic policy, this is true. In terms of U.S. foreign policy, though, the president is essentially God. As commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, he has the power to mobilize the American military at a moment’s notice to do practically any damn thing he wants, up to and including the launch of a nuclear strike.

Mind you, it wasn’t always this way. The commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution only officially gives this power to the president when the army, navy, or militia are “called into the actual Service of the United States.” Prior to the U.S. Civil War, the president’s power as commander-in-chief could only be exercised if (A) the U.S. was invaded, or (B) Congress had actually called the armed forces into service, i.e. declared War. Nowadays, though, the President is free to wage his own “war” anywhere he wants, whether Congress likes the idea or not, so long as he calls it a “police action” or “peacekeeping mission.”

44

Somebody beat you to it? :wink:

45

Podkayne wrote:

If you can build and launch a space probe capable of reaching the outer solar system and playing interplanetary billiards with the objects there, for one measly million dollars, I think you should file a patent application right away. Goldin and company would be drooling over it.

46

Oh, yes, he did:

So it’s starting to look like he made no errors in science that he did not later correct. But it says nothing about his ability to be a political leader (though I wish more political leaders would be willing to admit their errors; they seem to think that doing so would cast doubt on their authority).

47

You Have Got To Be The Biggest God Damn Nerd This Side Of The Misissipi! Your Mumblings are straight out of a college pshycology book. Its a scenario given in one of my old college professors lesson book. How hard was that to read it and type it in. Must have taken you hours. You really can’t come up with something of your own? I have seen some of your other topics. They are all sounding like questions out of the Compton’s Pshcology 1.1A series that can be found at any college library. Come on buddy this is a message board for real debates that come from the heart, not from someone elses renderings… I smell a Plagiarizer!

48

All questions are fair game, we’re mostly amateurs here. Contribute something or take it to the pit. I’d welcome you to the boards, but you seem like too much of an ass.

49

jab, thank you, I stand corrected.

Megatouch, WTF? Who the hell are you talking about?

50

MegaTouch said:

[Moderator Hat ON]

Direct personal insults are inappropriate in this forum. Being a jerk is inappropriate in any forum. I’d advise lurking for a wee bit more if you have not been around long enough to know what is acceptable behavior here.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

51

He apparently is

As a scientist (sort of anyway), I’ll only add that it would likely be almost impossible to be both a world-renowned scientist and a politician accomplished enougb to become president. The time constraints required to truly excel in either field (or any field, for that matter) would limit your ability to work in the other.

(Note: Don’t mean to start a war on the rigors of being a politician, just saying that to get that far, you need to sacrifice about everything else.)

Also, I’ll add that scientists can be as underhanded, devious, and unethical as any group. If you’d ever spend time in a “big-time” lab competing for grant $$, you’d see things that make politics seem tame.

52

wow,that is really scary… he has more power than our prime minister then ( who can be fired at any time from his own party ! ).

53

Jimmy Carter had a degree in Nuclear Physics and was often sent to nuclear accedent areas to coordenate the cleaning up.
IQ wise, he was one of the smartest leaders America has had.

54

jk1245 wrote:

Hey, wait a minute! That Onion article says that a tau lepton is formed “by the collision of a tau neutrino and an atomic nucleus.” Now, come on. While a tau-neutrino/nucleus interaction will indeed produce a tau lepton, it is by no means the only, or even the easiest, way to produce tau leptons. In fact, it was the sudden appearance of a tau lepton coming out of a nucleus just last year that gave us our first direct evidence that the tau neutrino even existed! We first detected tau leptons 25 years earlier than this, fer cryin’ out loud.

55

So I guess Duh-bya is not a physicist after all!

(I do realize that you’re saying the writer of that silly article ought to have been more careful.)

56

I question the whole premise. First of all, Phlosphr make a very bold claim, which is that if a good scientist ran the country we would A) not work on missile defense, B) strive for a worldwide government, C) forge a peace, and D) spend lots of money on scientific programs.

It sounds to me like you are taking your own personal political beliefs, treating them as gospel, and projecting them onto scientists. In other words, you’re saying, “A perfect leader would do all the things I think are right.”

The problem is, scientists do not fall lock-step into one political philosophy. Among scientists you’ll find plenty of conservatives, liberals, socialists, libertarians, you name it. The problems of government are deep and complex, and not amenable to scientific examination.

I’d MUCH rather have an economist in the White House, btw. At least they are actually trained to understand political issues.

For my money, scientists are just about the WORST people to have in public office. They tend to lack social skills, they tend to offer mechanized solutions to societal problems (which is why many are attracted to socialism, and why a LOT of scientists in the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s were fans of Communism). They often fail or refuse to understand social forces that can take the best technocratic solution and turn it into a giant failure.

All I want in a politician is someone who understands what the average citizen has to go through, has a decent intellect, and a healthy dose of common sense. I’ll take a Ronald Reagan over a Jimmy Carter any time.

57

Actually Mr.Stone,

I changed a little in my thinking about my original post, if you scroll back a little and read the entire thread, including my subsequent replys, you’ll see how the dynamic of the OP has changed and how my portrayal of someone in office has changed and evolved a bit. I honestly don’t have time to go into it, but if you read back throught the replys, you’ll see my view has changed a little…

:slight_smile:

58

the great scientist, Teller, was a pro nuclear war-mongerer

Some of our atomic scientists were 1st class traitors as they passed secrets right to the USSR.

Let’s say, excellent knowledge of science should be a positive in a presdential candidate.

We don’t have that in Bush.

59

How many, do you know? I can only think of maybe one case late into the cold war, but I admit I don’t follow the news that much.

60

No comment necessary.