GasBandit said:
This is silly. The link between drunk prostitutes and HIV needs a 2.6 million dollar study to be shown? I need to cook up some hairbrained scheme to test the link between... I don't know, the LENGTH of the shared needles and what affect this has on the spread of HIV, maybe I can get 2.6 million dollars and your blessing because, obviously, my intentions are good
Well, prostitution IS one of the largest causes of AIDS, not just in the US but around the world. The "drunk" angle was more of a side issue, from the article - just one of the things reseachers were looking at in regards to HIV and prostitutes.
Seriously, it pisses me off when people take one study, blow up some tiny portion of the study that sounds bad, and trumpet that to the wind. It was like when Palin was deriding "fruit fly research". Well, as it turns out, fruit flies are an incredible source of information on genetics - much of what we know about genes comes from that research.
Funding basic science, the kind that has no immediate commercial application but that has potentially giant social benifits, is one of the best things government can do. Research into how HIV spreads seems to be an obvious instance of that. Plus:
When we're facing the MASSIVE deficit we are, it's time to take a hard look at the ol' budget and see what can be cut. This seems like quite the no-brainer easy call to me.
Remember when conservatives were all up in arms because Obama cut 100 millions dollars in spending? It was rightfully called a "drop in the bucket". Well, that is FORTY times what this study will cost. Do you seriously think it matters? Unless one of you gets a hold of the actual grant proposal, and shows it to be ludicrus, I'm going to trust the NIH on this one and think that research into HIV is worth spending money on.
Even if it can be agreed by all parties that Bush royally smurfed up the War on Terror, when will the day come that Obama or anyone else in the administration takes ownership of their decisions and policies? Blaming Bush will only take him so far. $1.7 trillion deficit? Bush's fault. Restarting military tribunals, even though this was supposedly one of Bush's greatest crimes? Bush's fault. Indefinitely holding detainees STILL? Bush's fault
Maybe they'll take ownership of the world situation more than a few months into Obama's tenure? I mean, come on, nothing that Obama has done or could have done has had time to change anything. I wasn't a Bush fan back in 2001 (I wasn't old enough to vote, but it definatly wouldn't have been for him) but I know I wasn't blaming him for the state of the world a few months after his inaugeration. Come on.
Obama's foreign policy is resembling Bush's more and more every day, Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, Bush was on the right track on some of this stuff, even if the execution was flawed?
The difference between ANY American politician on foreign policy is, quite frankly, not that large. People will argue about those differences for days, but truely original thinking is non-existant.
Nonetheless, differences are there, differences that Obama expressed on the campaign trail - differences that he's followed up on. We've got a timetable to get out of Iraq - one big difference. Sure, that timetable could be altered based on facts on the ground - just like Obama said when campaigning. We're sending more troops into Afghanistan - just like Obama said when campaiging. Obama has a greater emphasis on realist diplomacy, less emphasis on moralistic lecturing (witness his handshake with Chavez) - just like he said when campaigning. But he hasn't taken the miltary option off the table when it comes to Iran - just like he said when campaigning.
Seriously, anyone who's surprised with ANYTHING Obama has done foreign policy wise, so far, wasn't paying attention during the campaign. He's more of a realist than Bush (in fact, he resembles - and many of his foreign policy advisers served under - George HW Bush) but it's truely not a giant difference. The consensus, Washington, elite view - whatever you want to call it - in American foreign policy is increidbly strong, and anyone who makes it through to the Presidency will share it. For good or for ill.