Next Tuesday, America will elect the next president of the United States and new members of the 111th Congress. Perhaps more than ever scientific issues are at the forefront of the political battleground.

By Laura Martin On most occasions, it is best to ignore Rush Limbaugh. Any publicity, good or bad, is publicity for a man that makes his millions by vying for our attention. But occasionally, Limbaugh goes too far. This Sunday, Colin Powell publicly endorsed Senator Obama on MSNBC’s Meet the Press. During the interview Powell stated, “I believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people.” Beyond criticizing Republican campaign tactics, Colin Powell also contrasted McCain’s erratic behavior, understanding of the economic crisis, and Vice Presidential pick to Obama’s steady performance and concrete policy goals.

“The U.S. spends more per capita than any other country on education. Yet, by every international measurement, in math and science competence, from kindergarten through the 12th grade, we trail most of the countries of the world. The implications of this are clearly obvious. Some even say it poses a threat to our national security. Do you feel that way and what do you intend to do about it?" Schieffer asked Obama and McCain. But with both candidates, little reform was suggested. How can students in debt start families, afford entry-level jobs, purchase homes, and ultimately contribute to America's development?

We are less than three weeks away from Elec­tion Day. In the longest presidential campaign in Amer­ican history, 15 primary candidates became two presidential hopefuls: Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. At this point in time, a typical campaign analyst would presume both platforms would have been well articulated, challenged, and disseminated in the presidential debates. But this is not a typical campaign, and that does not seem to be the case. In the midst of bemused moderators and citizens it is important to ask, what have we learned from Obama and McCain in the debates?

Even as a little kid, I always knew I was different from everyone else. While most children played with blocks and video games, I would spend hours chasing my dog in the backyard on all fours. My first word was “woof,” and I wasn’t house broken until I was five years old. To this day, old issues of The Sun line the floor of my room. Most disconcerting to my parents, however, was that I had the unhygienic habit of cleaning myself with my tongue and then greeting their business associates with licks on their faces.

“Treason!” “Kill Him!” “Terrorist!” Sounds like someone must have betrayed the United States in a horrible way, doesn’t it? Maybe sold secrets to an enemy, put American soldiers in danger on purpose, something like that. Whoever it is must surely deserve those words, right? Otherwise, why say them?

This past week, amongst the chaos of the bailout and financial crisis, the Senate approved the pending nuclear deal between the United States and India, ending the boycott of India by nuclear nations in response to its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. To critics, this agreement is a double-standard, favoring India at the expense of Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. For supporters it is simply recognizing the de-facto situation and rewarding India's cooperation by incorporating it into the international nuclear community.

Conglio gives his take on the presidential debates, focusing on each candidate's style and background.

By Tia Hicks and Zachary Murray The discussion has shifted and now we’re talking about “intellectual diversity.” We’re talking about providing “robust discussion” instead of preventing bigotry; we’re talking about the politics of diversity instead of outlining concrete efforts to achieve diversity and equality; we’re talking about how the University can protect itself from being criticized instead of responding to groups that alienate and denigrate. The problem with Americans is that we talk about race. We do not engage in conversations about racism. In fact, we avoid it altogether.