>>Made me laugh.

Then my job here is done!

Seriously, though, I understand and accept your point about critical thinking.

And it seems you also get what I was trying to say about specialization.

My larger point, though, is that I think a "presidential debate on science" (back to the article) is just a pointless distraction from an already diffuse focus on what should be key job description items of a "president".

And not only a distraction, but one which would be buried under a silly contest to see which candidate had best absorbed the frantic briefings. Not to mention the question vetting / negotiating that would go on before any such thing ever happened.

>>a decent leader absolutely must have at least a survey understanding of what is science and what isn't.

So Winston Churchill has to _understand_ how the Dambuster bombs worked? I can picture the scene now, complete with cigar being spat out, (do the voice in your head) "So these bombs _skip_ over the water?!? Nevah, in my wildest dreams of man's insanity, did I dream, that we would sink, to this depth.... application denied."

So Truman had to _understand_ how nuclear weapons worked? "So these aaatems are really smaaal, right?"

My point should be obvious. Before invention, the job that both those leaders did was to _pick the right scientists_. They didn't need a "survey understanding" -- or indeed any understanding at all -- because it should be abundantly clear that both of those technologies (and many, many others), before working prototypes, before physical demonstrations, sound exactly like science fiction.

3 more reasons to heed Farhad's call for internet on planes!

...but not for the reason you might think.

Indeed, I'm an old meritocrat from wayback -- the smartest person for the job, I say! So you might think I'd be all over this idea. No so, and I'll explain why.

The problem is that the Renaissance is over, and there are no more soldier/statesman/scientist/artist/brewer types available to run. Not because of any generalized, non-specific dumbing down, either, but rather because each of those categories is now specialized to the degree that a lot of knowledge in any one of those areas (yes, even brewing!) tends to preclude knowledge in any other, indeed all others.

So the skills we need in the top job are actually not the skills of a scientist, but rather the much more old-fashioned skills of leadership, specifically the ability to find, pick and retain the best people to advise, direct, and handle the various portfolios of functioning government.

The most brilliant leaders in history, without exception, were not one-person shows, but rather the evidence suggests that they had an almost preternatural ability to pick winners for their "core team".

The most awful leaders in history, without exception, never knew a loser they wouldn't hire.

Any long-term successful CEO, any war-winning general, anyone who leads for a living will back this up.

Ceasar had Trajan, the most brilliant general of his age. Lincoln's cabinet included William H. Seward, by any account one of America's greatest secretaries of state ever. By contrast, Hitler and Stalin surrounded themselves with yes-men and toadies.

So let's NOT have a presidential debate on science. Having a scientist for a president would be as useful as having a "beer with" president has been. Let us, rather, grill the candidates on their job descriptions for key cabinet roles with bonus marks for actually naming names.

Behind -- no, scratch that -- in front of every great president has been an awesome cabinet.

There are lots of occasions in our crowded city lives where we give up a little personal liberty so that we can all get along.

On subways, buses, escalators; in lifts; walking on the sidewalk.

I cannot see how being on an 'plane is any different. A little personal freedom needs to go by the board so that we can all have as "pleasant" a flight as possible.

I recall a long flight I took recently. Soon after we had leveled out, my window-seat neighbor (I had the aisle) popped his laptop out and began working. It was a daytime flight, and so I gazed happily out the window for a while at the clouds.

I became aware that my neighbor was uncomfortable about something -- he was making those strange "Hmmff" noises of discontent. I glanced from the window to his face and saw that he was glaring at me.

"What's the problem?" I asked.

"These are private business files," he said, "mind your own fucking business and stop trying to read them."

"I was looking out the window, friend," I said as pleasantly as I could. After all, this was my neighbor for the next 9 hours.

"Yeah, right," he snorted, "whatever you say."

I stood to my full 6 feet 6 inches in the aisle. "If there is something about the seating arrangements you'd like to discuss with the flight attendants, I'd be happy to go find one," I said.

"Forget it," he replied.

"I think that's an excellent suggestion," I said, and sat back down. He re-stowed his laptop, and we spent the rest of the flight peacefully.

Now imagine a flight with people doing "internet" type activities on their laptops: looking at porn; surfing viral video sites full of people throwing up and other tasteful activities; having conversations "NO NO I'M ON A PLANE!"

Yes, what a wonderful thing it will be when airlines have wifi installed.

Farhad, you clearly don't fly much...