If you read this article ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/laquila-earthquake-prediction-giampaolo-giuliani ) you will see that Giuliani was no crackpot - in fact he presented his research to an American conference. Just because someone does not have a PhD does not mean they cannot carry out scientific inquiry. All you need is brains and money. He has some financial backers. It seems, and this happens so often, that because he didn't have the right credentials his work was ignored in Italy and he wasn't allowed to publish. It wasn't until he came to the USA that he was given a fair hearing.

It is correct that literacy tests were used in the past to deny voting rights to citizens of color. However that does not mean that any test we apply in the future will be motivated by the same intent. Imposing a test in a vacuum is not desirable, however we now have very serious problems - long term problem of debt, healthcare costs, entitlement spending, a crumbling infrastructure, obsession with futile wars, income inequality, a failing k-12 educational system, the taking away of civil liberties and out of control intellectual property.

It appears probable that those problems can only be dealt with by a wise and knowledgeable electorate. Indeed only those who did not understand macroeconomics would have believed that the Bush tax cuts would have 'paid for themselves' as was claimed at the time. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those stupid actions. And that is why we need a rigorous examination for future voters,

[And there is nothing to prevent the imposition of safeguards in federal law to prevent the new exams being abused by those with racial malintent. For example the exam centers and grading system should be closely monitored.]

I don't dispute the importance of road safety.......

But what is it with the obsession with taking away motorists rights? They can be pulled over for any reason that the police might make up. The thrust of policy seems to be making their lives more miserable, encouraging congestion, raising prices to drive, lowering local speed limits etc.

And if you care about saving lives - why not care about the current NHS reforms which I am sure will mean a worse level of service for those who cannot afford private care. Undoubtedly people will die as a consequence.

People also die when they are homeless or don't have adequate access to housing - caused by draconian zoning policies (extreme green belt laws mean that you need to be very well off to buy a home in the south of the UK - now middle class people buy ex council flats.)

People die because of the war on drugs - why not deal with that?

Disabled people have a nasty habbit of dying especially when you cut their already miserly disability benefits.

People have short life expectancy when they are poor - why not deal with increasing income inequality?

Instead we overly obsess about the roads. Maybe it useful for governments because it distracts from more important issues.

Might I suggest a partial solution.

Perhaps we need to mandate that in order to vote you need to take a test. We do the same for driving yet bad voting decisions are even more calamitous than bad driving.

1. Require voters to have taken and passed a comprehensive 3 hour exam. It would cover the US political system (with a local component), history, economics, international relations and war, law (constitutional, federal and state), science and engineering (including energy), healthcare, the environment, finance, business, transportation, social economic and racial factors, regulation, tax, criminal justice and cost benefit analysis. It would included questions where multiple areas impinged on one issue - eg energy where cost, poverty, national security, the economy and the environment all tugged in possibly differing directions and where any policy involved compromise between these competing priorities. And people would need to know that Row vs Wade was built on Griswold v. Connecticut where the Court found constitutional protection emitting from "penumbras" within several amendments to the Constitution. And they would need to know what median household income was currently and how it compared with 40 years ago.

2. Require that on the federal level, candidates for congress and the presidency take a series of exams in the above subjects. They would be difficult, challenging and would make certain that the candidate was intelligent, had wide critical thinking skills and had a wide knowledge base. They would assume a college background in all those areas and the exams would be similar in difficulty to the bar, the CPA, the Step 1 exam (taken in med school), the actuarial exams and cumulative exams in graduate school. I think this would attract a lot more engineers to congress - something, that would in my opinion greatly enhance our polity. And it would prevent someone like John McCain from running for office when he had never even sent an email.

3. Require retesting at age 50 and 75.

4. Require high schools to teach rigorous civics courses. They would cover not just the basics, but committees, sub-committees, lobbyists, zoning regulations, town committees, bylaws and ballot initiatives.

5. Provide regular synopses of state and federal budgets, laws and regulations that are being considered, and recent significant judicial decisions. This would provide a depth that would go beyond the New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico.

6. Incentive citizens to, actually read them. Tax breaks maybe? Cash? etc.

7. Mandate that citizens attend town meetings etc.

8. We need to replace the idea of the patriotic citizen being a flag waving nationalist with a citizen who is informed, cares about their community and country and votes. For example, when we are not at war, the ideal citizen does not 'serve' in the military, rather she/he 'serves' on a local sub-committee, reads and comments on prospective laws and regulations and takes the time to learn about mundane uses of intellectual property in agriculture.

There is also another reason why more people are not in the S&E field - the pay sucks! It has fallen in real terms since 2000 (and started falling before this recession). If you get a BS in math, chemistry, physics, bio or biochem you are lucky to start on more than 35K. Some lucky few might start on 40K. Even computer and chemical engineers have seen their pay dropping (yes of course they start on a lot more). I know a Chem E who had to take 50K in a high cost city.

S&E are very hard degrees. I bet if starting salaries were 60K for science and 90K for engineering lots of people would 'suddenly discover' that they loved science. And yes corporate America could afford to pay them. Since 2000 productivity has increased significantly and profits are at record highs.

When I hear people saying we need to encourage more people to do STEM - I am incredulous. The solution is very simple - raise salaries and people will run to it. [It's also why top MIT PhDs go into Wall Street - why make 90K with a PhD in science when you can make 350K on Wall Street.]

What about afairyism - the belief that fairies don't exist? Are those weasel-words or do I need to justify myself and defend my afairyism?
Or agoblinism - the belief that fairies don't exist?

You could say that we all have to justify our lack of belief in an plethora of false idea.

Or of course you let common sense kick in and say that I don't have to justify not believing in things that lack supporting evidence.

The irony is that saying "Defining atheism as a lack of a belief system is merely a convenient way of using weasel-words to avoid having to defend the propositional statements contained in one's position" is in itself a form of weasel-words that end up making someone who is saying something that is quite rational seem irrational.

And for anyone who thinks this guy is legit - why won't he just publicly reveal his so called discoveries? He could then patent them and make a fortune. Our IP laws are stronger than ever.

What I find interesting is that it's never mentioned much in the mainstream media. It's not mentioned in the presidential debates. And I don't understand why unions, Americans for Tax reform and builders associations support it. Our current extreme IP inhibits economic growth (which is why tax reforms should be against it) and helps to bolster income inequality (which is why unions and builders associations should oppose it).

I understand that this this is the ONE issue that CNN, MSNBC and FOX all agree on. Because they all are part of media companies that want ever stronger IP to bolster their profits. The whole subject is censored.

So many of my so called 'informed' friends aren't aware of it and they say IP is boring. My god - what are we to do!

The act of asking a question shows you want to learn, understand that someone else may have the answer and are willing to listen. This is how science and engineering work. To suggest that asking a question is a problem is ludicrous.

And btw, a book and a website are just efficient consolidations of (often but not always) one person's knowledge - it's really no different conceptually than asking a question.

Just because 'the law' takes away a civil right does not make it right or just. Some human rights such as freedom of speech are inalienable.

The whole point of freedom of speech is the freedom to say something that someone else doesn't want heard. Even in North Korea you are 'free' to say how you love the regime. Regulating speech just because it's offensive is repugnant to the values of a free society.

How far would you reference 'the law'. Would it be ok if people got jailed for 18 weeks for saying to someone else that they were a 'dickhead'? Should all rudeness be a criminal offense? Would you say that being locked up for opposing a dictator is just a matter of disobeying the law and being punished? Or would you agree that 'the law' has limits and is not absolute and that it does not always merit being obeyed or being referenced as some kind authority.
ind authority.

When autos drive slower they consume less fuel, which means that not only are those cyclists reducing their own carbon footprint, they are reducing the footprint of the drivers as well.

That depends on the speed. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, most cars’ fuel efficiency peaks at between 35 to 60 mph. [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml]

A car going 10 miles behind a cyclist at 13 mph will consume about 75% more gas than one traversing the same distance at 35 mph. In addition the resulting traffic jam may cause many cars to be delayed further multiplying the effect. That makes cyclists, when they delay traffic, an environmental hazard.

The reason Apple is going after the Galaxy Tab is that a vary rare event has occurred - they actually have a competitor producing a product which is as good or better than Apple's product.