An Open Letter to the American People (signed by 61 Nobel Laureates )

A

ananag112

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://sefora.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nobelists-for-obama.pdf

An Open Letter to the American People
September 25, 2008

This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country’s scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama’s approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world’s leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

Signed,

Alexei Abrikosov
Physics
2003

Roger Guillemin
Medicine
1977

Peter Agre
Chemistry
2003

John L. Hall
Physics
2005

Sidney Altman
Chemistry
1989

Leland H. Hartwell
Medicine
2001

Philip W. Anderson
Physics
1977

Dudley Herschbach
Chemistry
1986

Richard Axel
Medicine
2004

Roald Hoffmann
Chemistry
1981

David Baltimore
Medicine
1975

H. Robert Horvitz
Medicine
2002

Baruj Benacerraf
Medicine
1980

Louis Ignarro
Medicine
1998

Paul Berg
Chemistry
1980

Eric R. Kandel
Medicine
2000

J. Michael Bishop
Medicine
1989

Walter Kohn
Chemistry
1998

N. Bloembergen
Physics
1981

Roger Kornberg
Chemistry
2006

Michael S. Brown
Medicine
1985

Leon M. Lederman
Physics
1988

Linda B. Buck
Medicine
2004

Craig C. Mello
Medicine
2006

Mario R. Capecchi
Medicine
2007

Marshall Nirenberg
Medicine
1968

Stanley Cohen
Medicine
1986

Douglas D. Osheroff
Physics
1996

Leon Cooper
Physics
1972

Stanley B. Prusiner
Medicine
1997

James W. Cronin
Physics
1980

Norman F. Ramsey
Physics
1989

Robert F. Curl
Chemistry
1996

Robert Richardson
Physics
1996

Johann Diesenhofer
Chemistry
1988

Burton Richter
Physics
1976

John B. Fenn
Chemistry
2002

Sherwood Rowland
Chemistry
1995

Edmond H. Fischer
Medicine
1992

Oliver Smithies
Medicine
2007

Val Fitch
Physics
1980

Richard R Schrock
Chemistry
2005

Jerome I. Friedman
Physics
1990

Joseph H. Taylor Jr.
Physics
1993

Riccardo Giacconi
Physics
2002

E. Donnall Thomas
Medicine
1990

Walter Gilbert
Chemistry
1980

Charles H. Townes
Physics
1964

Alfred G. Gilman
Medicine
1994

Daniel C.Tsui
Physics
1998

Donald A. Glaser
Physics
1960

Harold Varmus
Medicine
1989

Sheldon L. Glashow
Physics
1979

James D. Watson
Medicine
1962

Joseph Goldstein
Medicine
1985

Eric Wieschaus
Medicine
1995

Paul Greengard
Medicine
2000

Frank Wilczek
Physics
2004

David Gross
Physics
2004

Robert W. Wilson
Physics
1978

Robert H. Grubbs
Chemistry
2005

lol. Elitists
 
All I can imagine is someone trying to read that out loud and being washed out from the chants of "U.S.A U.S.A U.S.A".
 
I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX[/quote]

Well said! :)
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?




@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

The US needs to be on the cutting edge of scientific research again. The LHC was built in Europe, other countries are doing much more research in stem cell research then we are, and now China is doing space walks. Our government really needs to make more money available for pure scientific research if we want to reclaim our spot.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?
[/quote]

George Bush has a number of failed businesses under his belt before he became Governor of Texas...
 
malayan-sun-bear.jpg


If you elect McCain, we'll never know who the father is.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. If you're not dedicated for the advancement of our country's science, technological, medical, and space programs, you should not be leading us.

~HotShotX[/quote]


I wholeheartedly agree.
 
Dear Nobel Laureates,

Thanks, but no thanks.

Signed,
Barack Obama

Point being? The endorsement of a list of Nobel prize winners isn't going to help much, possibly just hurt really. Using the term "Laureates" further pushes the elitist mindset on top of the fact that just because you've made significant contributions to science doesn't mean you know dick about politics. Hell, there's even a handful of that list that aren't even from America.

Now to be fair their point is that George Bush's administration didn't do much in the way of supporting science research. HOWEVER, John McCain is not George Bush so really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I like how they think Obama will change things.[/quote]

I like how you think you know whether either candidate will fulfill their campaign promises, particularly with the economy shitting a brick right now.

I'm not going to presume to know someone I've never met in my life (unlike some voters), but based on what they hope to do as President, I'm ordering the Obama package of promises over the McCain package, because regardless of whether they get fulfilled or not, on the chance that they are, I want the package that I agree with more.

Now to be fair their point is that George Bush's administration didn't do much in the way of supporting science research. HOWEVER, John McCain is not George Bush so really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...
Click to expand...

After 8 years of little and stifled government support for technological advancement, the country needs a major dedication to the respective fields. I'm not saying John McCain hates science, I'm just saying someone else can do it better, and they need to be running the country for the next 4 years.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I like how you think you know whether either candidate will fulfill their campaign promises, particularly with the economy shitting a brick right now.

I'm not going to presume to know someone I've never met in my life (unlike some voters), but based on what they hope to do as President, I'm ordering the Obama package of promises over the McCain package, because regardless of whether they get fulfilled or not, on the chance that they are, I want the package that I agree with more.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

And what if you think both packages, in many ways, are going the completely wrong direction? Any advice?
 
Screw McCain, let's elect Huckabee.

Then we can target all of our research money on the dead sea scrolls, how those weird big-lizard bones fit in the theory of creationism, and why the ten commandments is the ultimate constitution.:whee:

Science is nice, but at the end of the day I'll just be glad if we don't have a complete embarrassment (IE Republican) in the White House.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']And what if you think both packages, in many ways, are going the completely wrong direction? Any advice?[/quote]

Find a third party candidate that works for you, and pray for the best.

Other than that, start researching the senate and house candidates for your state, and find out when their elections are, or shoot your current representative an email.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]

The Nobel name lost credibility with me when Yasser Arafat was given the Nobel Peace Prize. The selection of Al Gore only strengthened that opinion.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']really at the end of the day all they're doing is pushing the tired old stereotype that Republicans hate science...[/QUOTE]

Well, to be fair, Republicans do hate science. They hate science when it contradicts their political positions, just as Democrats hate/dismiss it when it contradicts their political positions. The bullshit stereotype is that only Republicans dismiss science, just like the one that says only Republicans run sleazy campaign ads.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.[/QUOTE]

The Nobel Prizes for Chemistry, Physics, and Medicine have not lost their credibility IMO.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.[/quote]

Your sour grapes over one choice = lost all credibility?

Wow, with your black-and-white way of thinking it's amazing you'll be voting in the Presidential election. After watergate it lost all credibility :whee:
 
If you don't have immense respect for them something is fundamentally wrong with you.

It's not even worth discussing.
 
1st draft of the recent letter to the American People:



Dear American People,
September 23, 2008

We are smart people and you are not.

We urge you to join us in supporting Barak Obama because he will make sure he diverts as much taxpayer money to our pet projects in the form of government grants.

If you don't support Obama, your TV will break, your kids will be stupid, we'll run out of oil, the economy will fail, the world will erupt in a giant fireball, and your entire family will die a slow agonizing death - all because of George Bush.

We love Senator Obama. We would like to suck his balls dry in return for money. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – like giving us lots of money so we can meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs, like studying the mating habits of the Didymops transversa.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership includes giving us lots of your hard earned money because we don't make anything productive to get your money by legitimate means.

You should listen to us because we are smart, and you are not smart enough to make decisions like funding science on your own.

Signed,

Smart people who have all gotten a million dollar nest egg - so fuck all the rest of you idiots
 
A million dollar nest egg is not much at all -- especially after taxes. I assure you at least 90% of that list is under compensated. To pretend they're motivated by self-interest is absolutely asinine.
 
[quote name='Koggit']A million dollar nest egg is not much at all -- especially after taxes. I assure you at least 90% of that list is under compensated. To pretend they're motivated by self-interest is absolutely asinine.[/QUOTE]

It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.

You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Who are you referring to exactly? Who's a failed business man running the country?




@OP, The Nobel name has lost all credibility to many people. So all you have there is a common petition, I'm afraid.[/quote]
I love how that article calls Gore the "gentleman in the tin foil hat."

That's fine, i'm sure if she'd won instead, nobody would think it in bad taste to call her the "woman in the wheelchair."
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.[/QUOTE]

You're adding a meaning to my words that isn't there. Everyone is motivated by self-interest. You're asserting that these scientists want increased funding so that they financially prosper, and that is definitely not the case.

[quote name='bmulligan']You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.[/QUOTE]

This would be fair, were it possible to exclude you from their work's positive effect. Science advances society -- the cost is society's to bear.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It seems you are the one who like to play make-believe if you think scientists aren't motivated by self-interest.

You think they're under-compensated? Feel free to make a donation instead of requiring me to make one in your name.[/quote]

I'll never know why you sweat the small stuff so hard. Money-wise this is a pittance - it's amazing to me how consistently you stand on the side of absolute ideology in the face of practicality.

Can't we ever debate the policies based on their results, rather then always returning to the same swashbuckling ideology farce?
 
Pretty sure the funding we're talking about here is the difference between Obama's scientific funding and McCain's scientific funding -- federal grants for scientific research and scholarship.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'd rather have a bunch of intelligent elitists running this country than a bunch of dumb failed businessmen. [/quote]

I don't know about that. That's like choosing bewteen a punch in the stomach or a kick in the ass. Both are out of touch with the middle class.

If after 4 years of either McCain or Obama things still suck ass in the USA(by USA standards, not third-world hell hole standards), I say let some other group take a crack at things.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I love how that article calls Gore the "gentleman in the tin foil hat."

That's fine, i'm sure if she'd won instead, nobody would think it in bad taste to call her the "woman in the wheelchair."[/QUOTE]

I like it how thrust uses the word many the way a three old uses it i.e. more than he can count.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']out of touch with the middle class.[/QUOTE]

Am I the only one really sick of hearing this?
 
[quote name='Koggit']Am I the only one really sick of hearing this?[/quote]

Truth is truth.

The second that phrase proves to be otherwise, I'll stop using it.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Truth is truth.

The second that phrase proves to be otherwise, I'll stop using it.[/quote]

Well yeah, but it seems the second that one becomes qualified to lead the country is the same second they become out of touch with the "middle class." I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."
 
[quote name='SpazX']I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Some people lose touch, or never had it as they were born wealthy. But it's not like having an advanced education and earning wealthy all of a sudden makes one not understand the middle class.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well yeah, but it seems the second that one becomes qualified to lead the country is the same second they become out of touch with the "middle class." I mean, it's possible for someone to make a lot of money, be very well educated, and still understand the "middle class."[/quote]

I disagree. Bill Clinton IMO related to the middle-class well for the most part, but I think his humble beginnings made him the exception to the rule.
 
I'll lay it out:

1. People say they want change or they're sick of being lied to, but they continue to fall for it and voting in the same shit over and over again.

2. People don't vote on issues. They vote on who they like more.

3. To expand on #2, voting on the issues would require actual knowledge of the issues, which people clearly don't have. It's not that there aren't resources out there, or that it's impossible to gleam anything on the issues from the media, it's that people simply make up their minds and don't care about it after that. They possess no critical thinking ability at all.

4. The issues people actually do care about are mostly bullshit and really meaningless to them, like gay marriage, sex scandals, etc.

5. People don't want to work hard or sacrifice today in order to have a much better tomorrow.

6. In an odd counterpoint to #5, people will vote against their own self-interest because of their feelings towards issues in #4. They will throw away better education, better infrastructure, and just to get someone who says they wanna ban gay marriage.

Honestly, democracy really hinges on the ability of the electorate to make informed decisions. This is obviously compromised by their utter laziness and disinterest in having anything other than a superficial conversation about the issues. Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Exactly. Some people lose touch, or never had it as they were born wealthy. But it's not like having an advanced education and earning wealthy all of a sudden makes one not understand the middle class.[/quote]

Money and status has changed many a person that originally was humble. If that wasn't the case Washington wouldn't be the morass it is now.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Money and status has changed many a person that originally was humble. If that wasn't the case Washington wouldn't be the morass it is now.[/QUOTE]

It changes some people. Not all.

It doesn't automatically render anyone who achieves success unable to understand the middle class they came from.

One could argue that the lower and middle classes just have a harder time of seeing the bigger picture since many can only see paycheck to paycheck due to their life circumstances.

A leader can understand that, while also knowing they have to do what's best for society in the grand scheme.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']I disagree. Bill Clinton IMO related to the middle-class well for the most part, but I think his humble beginnings made him the exception to the rule.[/QUOTE]

Both Obama and McCain have humble beginnings. Obama worked hard and got a great education, and recently got wealthy from his books. McCain married into wealth.
 
[quote name='evanft']Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.[/quote]

Aiaiai. What, in the long historical record of the world, led you to this idea?
 
[quote name='evanft']Given this fact, a dictatorship of elites with the best interest of the people in mind would likely be better than a democracy whose representatives are voted in by creatures barely more advanced than trained chimps.[/quote]

Kim Jong-il agrees.

The closest thing to that is royal bloodlines, and most of those are gone in modern times because people realized their interests weren't being met.

Yeah, people aren't up on all issues and it can be tough to get anything postive done, but you can blame that on the complexity of the government as much as anything. All you have to do is look at a tax form. There is no reason taxes can't be simplified beyond what they are now.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It changes some people. Not all.

It doesn't automatically render anyone who achieves success unable to understand the middle class they came from.

One could argue that the lower and middle classes just have a harder time of seeing the bigger picture since many can only see paycheck to paycheck due to their life circumstances.

A leader can understand that, while also knowing they have to do what's best for society in the grand scheme.



Both Obama and McCain have humble beginnings. Obama worked hard and got a great education, and recently got wealthy from his books. McCain married into wealth.[/quote]


I honestly don't care if Obama or McCain wins. They better show and prove regardless.
 
The point is that there's no need to relate to the middle class. It should never be used as a reason to vote for/against a politician.

I can't relate to pregnant women, but I know how to take care of one every bit as well as a woman who has been pregnant. This is no different.

If you want to say ___'s proposals don't solve the issues of America's middle class, fine, but to say they're out of touch... maybe they are, but who cares?
 
That's an interesting point.

Government is hampered by being elected by people who are largely under educated, unable to see the big picture and swayed more by pointless hot button social issues than things that really matter. Thus those elected aren't necessarily the best for the job in the grand scheme of thing.

But history has no examples of another system of goverment that works any better at putting qualified people in office.

Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Kim Jong-il agrees.[/quote]

I wasn't actually throwing my support behind the idea, merely laying out an argument for it.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']The closest thing to that is royal bloodlines, and most of those are gone in modern times because people realized their interests weren't being met.[/quote]

Well, now you'd have to start defining "elites." I was simply using it as those who are much more knowledgeable and able than average. I'd compare it to a company being run by professionals with experience whose goals are directly in line with the company's vs. someone who got there because of who they knew, who they were, or how good they were at kissing ass.

[quote name='GuilewasNK']Yeah, people aren't up on all issues and it can be tough to get anything postive done, but you can blame that on the complexity of the government as much as anything. All you have to do is look at a tax form. There is no reason taxes can't be simplified beyond what they are now.[/quote]

If people wanted things to change, why do they continue to vote the way they do? If they are dissatisfied with both major parties, why not vote for one of the many third party candidates? If they care about real issues, why do they only make noise about the stupidest ones?

Oh, and you might as well throw religion into the discussion as to why people lack critical thinking ability, are unwilling to listen to new information or change their mind, and generally make decisions based on how they feel rather than on fact. When it's acceptable to belief that there is an all-seeing deity who created everything and he will send you to a very hot place when you die if you don't listen to him, swallowing the bullshit in a political ad isn't much of a stretch.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.[/quote]

And that won't happen with the current voter base. It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. You need a smarter electorate to get better education, but you need better education to get a smarter electorate.
 
[quote name='Koggit']The point is that there's no need to relate to the middle class. It should never be used as a reason to vote for/against a politician.

I can't relate to pregnant women, but I know how to take care of one every bit as well as a woman who has been pregnant. This is no different.

If you want to say ___'s proposals don't solve the issues of America's middle class, fine, but to say they're out of touch... maybe they are, but who cares?[/quote]

Alrighty then.

[quote name='dmaul1114']That's an interesting point.

Government is hampered by being elected by people who are largely under educated, unable to see the big picture and swayed more by pointless hot button social issues than things that really matter. Thus those elected aren't necessarily the best for the job in the grand scheme of thing.

But history has no examples of another system of goverment that works any better at putting qualified people in office.

Our system is probably the best. The solution isn't changing the system, it is improving education. You see less of these flaws (not knowing the issues, focusing soley on hot button social issues) as years of education increases. Change the voter base, and the problems will be reduced. But that's a long way off and our education system needs a lot of work.[/quote]


The problem with improving education in regards to politics is the assumption that everyone can be educated to the same level. No Child Left Behind proves that isn't a logical assumption. It's no different than assuming everyone can be taught to fly or taught to play an instrument. Some just can't.
 
[quote name='evanft']
And that won't happen with the current voter base. It's kind of a chicken and the egg scenario. You need a smarter electorate to get better education, but you need better education to get a smarter electorate.[/QUOTE]

True to a degree. But I more just meant getting more people with college degrees, advanced degrees etc. That's already been increasing over time, and is likely a reason why Obama is doing so well as he has such strong support among the highly educated, younger demographic.



[quote name='GuilewasNK']
The problem with improving education in regards to politics is the assumption that everyone can be educated to the same level. No Child Left Behind proves that isn't a logical assumption. It's no different than assuming everyone can be taught to fly or taught to play an instrument. Some just can't.[/QUOTE]

Again, I more just meant getting more people with college degrees. More people with advanced degrees.

Just going through the process requires learning to critically think about things. It's not going to work for everyone, but again there's a pretty decent correlation between education and knowledge of issues, current events etc. etc.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a Rhodes Scholar to be aware of the issues and vote on more than silly hot button social issues like abortion.

But of course, there are people without degrees who aren't like that, and plenty of educated folks who still vote based on frivolous shit. But the former is much more common as education increases, and the latter much more common with the less education a person has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top