War on Science

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by orangelightning, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. orangelightning

    orangelightning Registered Member

    My favorite part of the first Presidential debate (and I've only seen the first 20 minutes so far) was Senator McCain lamenting the 3 million dollar earmarked expense of studying the genetics of bears in Montana. He wondered jokingly whether or not it was a criminal investigation or a paternity issue.

    Very funny.

    It is sad to me that science can be forgotten or trivialized to make a political point. It's the kind of tactic that is easy to use because the comment appeals to an average voter who probably did not receive a solid science education (a whole separate issue) and who cares about wasteful spending and because the Senator doesn't have to be held accountable for his scientific ignorance. He can safely make the point about the economy without in any way needing to be responsible for how wrong his was about the science. Gross.

    It reminds me of George Bush Sr. warning Americans that they'd be up to their necks in owls and out of work under proposed conservation strategies. He totally missed the point, exaggerated the consequences, and preyed upon the ignorance of most Americans to make a political jab.
     

  2. Tucker

    Tucker Lion Rampant

    McCain's attempts at wit are routinely abysmal. I remember hearing that 'zinger' and thinking, "THIS is the worst example of wasteful earmarking he can come up with? A paltry three mil for a scientific study of a vanishing species?"
     
  3. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    I heard that part too and shook my head. Yep, spending a little money to potentially save a species is a huge waste of money. :rolleyes:
     
  4. scitsofreaky

    scitsofreaky Registered Member

    I am not surprised by his remark, although it seems more like something Palin would say.
     

Share This Page