John McCain Answers Science Debate 2008. Compare with Obama's side by side.
More like this
So, it snowed here (in Louisiana). Sure, it wasn't a lot, but it was still a big deal. The following day, there was still some snow on the house roofs. I took some pictures. Here is a shot looking at the North side of a house.
I'm not a mass-media-audience type of blog, so I excuse myself from having to be kind to "my side"; I don't think I need to avoid worrying Joe Public about dissent in the "we believe in GW" side of the blogosphere, because I don't think JP reads me.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon.
When we are trying to understand what s
I find it interesting that McCain says that he opposes "wasteful earmarks" when instead the funds can be used for research, while it was a research plan (the study about bears) that he gave as his prime example of "wasteful earmarks" at his VP announcement. Maybe he was for it before he was against it.
I suspect it's the problem of one person seeing research as useful and another as wasteful. Deciding what to fund or not and what is wasteful or not is tricky. For instance one person might argue you could fund a hell of a lot of mathematicians for the price of an accelerator trying to track down the higgs boson. Is one more valuable than the other?
I don't know how to make that decision despite having been on teams getting millions of dollars of government grants for research I found frankly wasteful.
It's not just science research though. Even a lot of government "pork" can be seen as helpful or not. Obviously a lot of Alaskans thought the "bridge to nowhere" wasn't pork but many of us down here to the south did. I recall a great NPR show that looked at examples of pork and tracked down the defenders. There's a lot of subjective judgment in all this. (Just as it is in your own personal budgets - what is wasteful spending and what is valuable?)