For those of you who watched the first Presidential debate last night, you know that the state of the U.S. economy was the first and central topic discussed by Presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. You also might have heard Senator John McCain, in his first few minutes of answering the question on what do to about the U.S. financial crisis, criticize the U.S. government for spending $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Later in the debate, McCain did go on to talk about defense spending. Still, it bothered me that the first attack and hard figure he put out there related to scientific research. Particularly when that $3 million dollars on bear research is a trifling 0.0005% of the $600 billion we have spent on the Iraq war, which John McCain fully supported (calling the war "necessary and just"). So let's make sure when we talk about government budget cuts, we keep our priorities in the right place...
McCain keeps repeating that line about the grizzly bears ("I don't know if it's a paternity issue or a criminal issue") despite knowing that it was part of the grizzly population recovery program. That's simply dishonest. Also, most of the $3 million came from regular research funding and was not an earmark. Apparently he would rather trade the health of the ecosystem of the northern Rockies for another 3.8 seconds in Iraq.
Will, simple question. How much oil is in a bear's DNA? Case closed.
McCain keeps on sending the signal that science is unimportant to him. He is a war time guy with a weak grasp on the implications of ignoring science in favor of military adventurism.
Perfect opportunity for Obama to tee off.
Also, the bear DNA project appears to be good science!
Maybe he's afraid of bears. Perhaps, had it been a bear eradication program he would be more supportive. ;)
When I heard him say that, I thought two things. One, he is anti-science; two, he is prone to spout off on things that he does not understand.
Moreover, earmarks have a trivial effect on the overall US economy. The reason they are important, is that they make lobbying pay off. The problem is not the earmarks; the problem is the lobbying. Let's hear McCain get up and propose lobbying reform.
The comment was just an example but I agree silly to mention. Despite the stats and the market, I see so many high paying jobs posted on employment sites -
I see 100K, 150K and 200K jobs. For those that know where to look, they will find great jobs.
Yes Thats is a good idea
very good sites
hÄ±mm nice web page
Thank you my friend
respect for the love, thank you master
a moment to look over before the economic crisis, money market, fathers are no longer hose to remove the money
Thanks a lot
a moment to look at the moment
a moment to look at he moment thanks
This is the inevitable result
I'm going to bet that it's usually the first reason that gets most peoples' knickers in a twist. In this culture, women's bodies exist mostly to please men. If they're otherwise occupied, or not pleasing, they're supposed to be kept private. The breasts of breastfeeding women are both--no wonder they're so offensive.