Response to Bear DNA criticism/ earmarks in general

[johnlal]

Every time McCain brings up the earmark for the study of Bear DNA, I think to myself:

You know, John, in your day, some people thought that the Space Race was wasteful spending, and sending a man to the moon was crazy. I can't imagine what America would be today if we hadn't had the courage to explore space.
It may be hard for you to understand, but discovering the secrets of DNA is this generation's "man in the moon". By unlocking the secrets of DNA, we have solved crimes, saved innocent people from the electric chair, held father's accountable for the support of their children, and learned about our own origins. The study of DNA could lead to new prevention and treatment of disease.
The study of DNA may be confusing or unnecessary to you, much as the moonshot was to older generations. But in our attempts to remain a powerhouse of science and technology, the study of DNA is crucial.


When talking about earmarks, I would point out that one major component of our economic decline is the deterioration of our infrastructure. With a crumbling infrastructure, we can't hope to compete with other countries. Industries may be tempted to locate here if our infrastructure was hospitable. This requires road construction, bridge construction, and other projects around the country. Yes, there is an unseemly battle for funds between legislators representing different states, but it's the best system we have. I suppose we could have a centralized one-fits-all planned economy, without input from the various states and districts, but that result in some places being overlooked or neglected. Earmarks is not the problem. Spending discipline is.

[featherman]

1. I get so angry at these anti-science one-liners that are such cheap political stunts

Yes, studying of bear DNA in Montana IS important research to understand and support these populations. How can anybody think otherwise?

And, yes, Keith Olbermann, $2,000,000 to study the mating habits of crabs in the Bering Sea IS important. This is an enormous industry in Alaska. Good grief, don't these people know where the crab in their restaurants comes from and the scary decline in crab populations?

So, duh, yes we do need to know more about the species behavior to maintain it as a population and resource for the future.

[DesertRat]

2. He voted for it before he was against it

McCain: "You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control".

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question ( http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/NCDEbeardna.htm )was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00034

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

[gblady]

4. that "joke" of his creeped me out....

paternity...???
wondered what he was implying....

[DesertRat]

6. It's a stale line that he's been using for years now

His sense of humor escapes me.

[creeksneakers2]

3. William Proxmire used to give out "Golden Fleece" awards

The awards were for crazy sounding projects that the federal government ran. Proxmire ended up getting sued because what sounded crazy turned out in fact to be very important when the reasons for the projects were fully explained.

Sarah Palin had the same problem in Alaska. She made budget cuts that were later overturned. Legislators said she didn't understand the importance of what she was cutting.

We come to learn that the sad end of teenage defiance is the awful realization that most things are the way they are for good reasons.

I know when a species declines to small numbers that species can be threatened by a lack of variety in DNA. If the DNA is too similar the members of the species will produce defective or no offspring. Perhaps there is another reason for studying DNA too.

I'm not saying that all earmarks are good and none are wasteful. Its important though to know the whole story before pointing fingers.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Did he use the bear DNA in the debate? Did he forget that Palin requested

earmarks to study the mating habits of CRABS?