I'm like, YEAH! FUCK basic science. What the hell is that crap good for, anyway!

If only Carl Sagan was here to so clearly enunciate the difference between millions and billions for us. He is missed in so many ways.

Somewhere, Carl Sagan and Johnny Carson are having a really fun and interesting conversation.

Palin herself requested a large sum to study crab reproduction in Alaska. I was surprised Obama didn't bring it up as a rebuttal to McCain when he whined about the 3 mil.

And it wouldn't even hurt their standard of living. Knowing stuff is anti American. Always was.

I also like it when people post comments saying that $700 billion is enough to give every american $250,000 dollars. It's actually about $2,300. This is basic arithmetic.

I don't remember the details, but there's at least one similar federally-funded DNA study going on in Alaska. (Salmon? I forget. Maybe they were studying the DNA of trees cut down to renovate Sen. Steven's house.)

They're studying the DNA of Alaskan seals. True fact.

I'm re-posting a comment I made on September 6:

John McCain doesn't understand economic issues - he turns to Phil Gramm for that information. When Phil Gramm ran for president, McCain backed him in the primary. John McCain is a simpleton when it comes to the economy. He thinks cutting government pork is creating economic growth.

We are beyond that. Our economic issues are much more complex than he is equipped to deal with.

Obama addressed this directly in the debate, but I didn't hear any commentary from the press about it afterward. Thank you for mentioning it here. I hope more people can sort out cutting government pork from creating economic growth.

This DNA study was a fairly important part of an endangered species recovery program. The study, which used DNA to determine the diversity of the existing population (which has important clues for the long-term recovery) has been applauded by the state governments effected by the recovery efforts. (As an example, see Montana's comments in the link below. An no one can argue that Montana is the tool of any passport-toting', backpack-wearing, cocktail-partying liberal elite).

McCain's repeated use of this study demonstrates three things:

1. He is no environmentalist.

2. He doesn't understand that our economic problems are not the result of valid scientific studies.

3. Demagougery has replaced the Straight Talk Express.

A million more ideas like his three million dollar one, would be three trillion dollars. It would be far more accurate to say, 100,000 more ideas like his million dollar one (300B) wouldn't erase the debt.

Ever wonder where such enumeracy comes from? Repetition, brother.

The sad thing is, these numbers are not hard to put in context. $3 million is one cent for every person in the USA. $700 billion is $2,333 for every person in the USA. Or rather, from every person.

I'm not sure this post shows that "too many Americans struggle with basic math;" more that referencing big numbers without context is misleading. I'm not against blaming the average American when it's deserved, but Schaller should back up the snark if he's going to use it.

This DNA study was a fairly important part of an endangered species recovery program.

I figured as much.

I'm sure there are more than a few honestly ridiculous things our taxes pay for. But I hate it when some political weasel picks something to rant against because it sounds crazy rather than because it is crazy.

I blame William Proxmire, that milk-subsidy chugging son-of-a-bitch.

Its really more of a rant, and a poor one at that. Anything that includes the phrase "are you kidding me" isnt reallty news.

I'm sure there are more than a few honestly ridiculous things our taxes pay for. But I hate it when some political weasel picks something to rant against because it sounds crazy rather than because it is crazy.

Right on.

Is it wasteful to spend $3 million to study bear DNA, when it has been pointed out that the slippery slope of gay marriage will undoubtedly lead to man-on-dog sex?

How much further down that slope will we have to go before man-on-bear sex?

And if someone were to be raped by a bear, without a choice, that man-cub would have to be raised by the mother, or put up for adoption. In that case wouldn't it be prudent to have a national database of bear DNA to track these dead beat bears?

Now doesn't it make sense to actually increase the amount spent on bear DNA research?

Although certainly there is a lot of exploitation of peoples' misunderstanding in that regard. McCain's mission against earmarks or pork-barrel spending is an affront to our intelligence too. Earmarks are one of the major ways, after appropriations that our reps use to get federal money to the state and local level. Yes, earmarks can and have been misused but McCain's seeming heroic struggle to cut them off betrays an ignorance of the basic instrument of government and assumes we won't know the difference. And lots of people don't.

Certainly transparency is of the utmost importance but bills attaching funding are not necessarily bad and a lot are good ways to get money for say scientific research or enviromental remediation among many things we need to spend money on- why is that wrong?

And why he gets away with turning every single problem with the economy back to earmarks - including the financial meltdown happening right now - without anyone really pushing back boggles me. His understanding is so obvioulsy shallow and ideological - it is not just limited - what he knows or thinks he knows and what he believes are the remedies are simply wrongheaded.

A billion is a thousand million, right? So McCain is worried about whether his kid spent that $3.00 he gave him wisely while the family's ARM just reset and they're now in debt for $700,000.00.

But $3 million during a week in which the government is set to approve a $700 billion bailout -- are you kidding me? McCain had the audacity in last Friday's debate to fret publicly about that? What a joke.

I disagree. He's fighting against waste on something tangible people can point to - DNA and bears. 700 billion is for something intangible - the economy, credit, confidence in markets, etc.

It's hitting simplistic ideas with simplistic answers. You start talking about the intricacies of a policy and people's eyes gloss over. Spending a finite amount on a finite topic is something voters can make a decision on - The economic "bailout" they cannot or don't want to.

Quit talking about McCain like he's an idiot. He knows what plays well with people. The problem is that he just jumps all over the place on those populist themes instead of being consistent. This was a good line and the one area that I felt McCain got most of his positive results in the debate. Obama tried to hit him on it, but he needed to really take him down on this point (which yes, isn't even relevant) but he didn't. This was a win for McCain not a - are you joking me?!? moment for most voters.