…and this is a 
McCain once again whined about studying bear DNA, and it's clear that the decrepit old man doesn't have a clue about the value of biological research. But the other interesting revelation is that while denouncing earmarks for studying bear DNA, overhead projectors, or fruit fly research, the complaint is not about earmarks, but about funding science.
How can we tell? It turns out that Sarah Palin was happy to lobby for earmarks to study recreational halibut fishing, the mating habits of crabs, and harbor seal DNA. Those all sound like legitimate science projects to me, but I doubt that Palin recognized that — all she cares about is diverting money to her bailiwick. This is a different kind of abuse of science, where it's seen only as a tool for local profit … and you just know that she would not support even local science that interfered with her plans.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 28, 2008 3:26 PM
This should be fun.
I can't wait to see the normal characters come and spin themselves into a hole trying to keep defending McCain and Palin against the obvious anti-science stances they are taking.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 3:31 PM
No surprise. When a politician says he's against earmarks it's understood he doesn't mean the ones that benefit his constituents.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Actually, to some extent it is a paternity issue. The larger the number of sires, the more that genetic diversity of the bears is maintained.
Crack a (knowledge-based) book, McCain.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: steve8282 | October 28, 2008 3:40 PM
seems Science may hate them back. :-)
Posted by: Benjamin Allen | October 28, 2008 3:44 PM
Now, I could easily be wrong here, but aren't the budgets of the NIH and NSF determined largely by earmarks? The executive branch does not allocate funds or give orders to either agency at least in terms of grant funding. I could easily be wrong though.
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 3:47 PM
[Palin voice]
Gosh you guys shur think we're out ta getcha with all that anti-science talk. The fact of the matter is we luv science. As a matter a fact that's why we want to teach the controversy, abstinence education, and fund our private schools instead of wasting money looking at bear dna and house flies.
[/Palin voice]
I really detest that Palin person.
Posted by: Unrelated Geezer | October 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Ironic, isn't it? The very science that keeps this decrepit geezer alive and healthy (well, for his advanced age) is what he targets for gutting.
Posted by: Victor | October 28, 2008 3:49 PM
How unbearable.
Posted by: geru | October 28, 2008 3:52 PM
Well isn't this exactly what America needs in the near future, less science!
Maybe they're counting on the old Creationist-mantra: science is just a passing fad.
Posted by: Paul Burnett | October 28, 2008 3:54 PM
"How unbearable." - Victor, #8
It's a cross we all have to bear.
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
The bear DNA study opened up vast areas of Montana for business; why does McCain hate Montana business?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 28, 2008 3:58 PM
There's trouble bruin, no doubt. These candidates ursa ridiculous.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | October 28, 2008 4:01 PM
My problem is with how a project is funded. I'm fundamentally against hiding the funding in another piece of legislation that usually has no relevance to what's being funded.
For something like a sky dome projector a fund raising drive would be the best way to go about it. If government money is necessary, then dedicated legislation is to be preferred to sneaking the money into an irrelevant bill.
Of course, taking the government out of funding science education projects means lowering taxes; so people will have the money to donate to the museum or classroom. Then again, funds gained through private donations usually mean the project in question gets a higher percentage of the money actually, well, earmarked.
Direct public appeals are harder, but then you're not dependent on the good will of a government bureaucrat or a venal politician.
Posted by: Joel | October 28, 2008 4:03 PM
Oct 28 4004 BC
God creates Adam and Eve five days after the rest of the universe, according to Biblical calculations by Archbishop James Ussher.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | October 28, 2008 4:04 PM
Alex, that attempted Palin impersonation fails miserably. I was able to follow every word of that even through the folksy dialect. More sentence fragments, sudden tangents and... job growth for the and energy independence so that we can help make sure that the comprehensive health care is about job growth... sorry, the stupid catches when trying to think about her talking.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 28, 2008 4:06 PM
I read this post twice, and I'm still not sure I'm getting the same out of the information as PZ is.
as far as I can tell, this is just more of the same hypocrisy that makes it ok to have windfall taxes in alaska, but not everywhere else (i.e. it's ok to fund stuff, even science, with earmarks in alaska, but not in california, and certainly not in france!!)
I find the fact that they only seem to drag out science projects as examples of frivolous earmarking far more telling...
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 4:08 PM
#15 Humanistic, I admit, you did a better job. Her damn voice permeates my brain and I fear I'm losing IQ points every time I hear her speak. What a waste of skin. I've hired and fired fast-food employees more capable than her.
Posted by: SteveM | October 28, 2008 4:10 PM
Yes, but that is not what McCain and Palin are arguing. They are attacking the projects themselves, not that they were "hidden" in a larger, unrelated piece of legislation. Because that is how everything gets funded so they can't complain about the method. I agree with you that the method is the problem, but no one talks about changing that.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 4:12 PM
There's trouble bruin, no doubt. These candidates ursa ridiculous.
But is the problem major or minor? Did McCain just commit a BooBoo? I mean, we might not want to go all hyper-nation over it.
Posted by: wfr | October 28, 2008 4:15 PM
John McCain has been living with injuries he received in service to his country for forty years. It may be technically valid to call him "decrepit," but to do it with a sneer, as if he were somehow responsible for his physical condition, diminishes your own credibility. Attack the man's ideas, sure, but not the man.
Posted by: MikeM | October 28, 2008 4:15 PM
I tried a little game with my family last night. I swear I'm not making this up.
Come up with a list of 5 things you like about Sarah Palin.
I put a sincere effort into it, and the best I could do was 1 item; I think she's somewhat compassionate. My buddy at work countered that: Dude, she's forcing her 17 year old daughter to get married.
Damn. Back to zero items.
I can't even say she dresses well. Well, she does, but only because she's spent more of her party's money on clothes for an 8 week campaign than I've spent in my entire life.
Okay, so try it. Five things you like about Sarah Palin.
(I've already lost. Everyone's going to beat me.)
Posted by: Zeekster | October 28, 2008 4:15 PM
Maybe McCain likes science but doesn't think the government should be supporting it.
(Don't yell at me! I voted Obama. I love science and thing the government should support it.)
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 4:17 PM
Really - caniform a reasonable justification for his dismissal of this research? Let's paws for a moment to give him a chance.
Posted by: raven | October 28, 2008 4:22 PM
NeEds A LOt MorE EXClamaTION maRKS!!!!! AND mORe RaNDom CaPitaLization!!!! AN StP SpELin ThinS RITE!!!!
Palin may be the first and hopefully the last internet troll nominated for higher office.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 4:27 PM
Eh. Science - good fur nothin'. These politicians should stop caving and pandaring to the old boys' cub.
Posted by: Jason Dick | October 28, 2008 4:33 PM
I honestly don't understand why these rubes don't go after earmarks that, you know, are actually pointless, instead of funding for science. I mean, there's got to be some ridiculous ones out there besides that bridge to nowhere...
Posted by: thalarctos | October 28, 2008 4:37 PM
Well, this thread's gone from bad to urs.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
wfr (#20) was concerned,
I always thought that decrepit referred more to his brain than his body.
If so, that is an attack on his ideas, I would think.
P.S. How do his war injuries bear on a judgement of the results of his age? Seems like a non-sequitor.
Posted by: ggab | October 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Five things I like about Sarah Palin.
1-Efficiency
She was able to save the time it takes to come up with human names for her children and devote that time to listing books to be banned.
2-Location
Next week she's going back to Alaska. I like how far away from Cincinnati that is.
3-Consistency
She's been giving essentially the same hate filled McCarthyesc stump speech since the convention.
4-uh...let's see...If she's right and the rapture comes, that means we'll be here and she'll be gone...that would kinda be nice...right.
5-Wow this is hard..um...I like the fact that I'm not the one who impregnated her creepy inbred daughter. Does that count?
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 4:42 PM
Well, this thread's gone from bad to urs.
Urs so you say. My view's the polar opposite.
Posted by: SoMG | October 28, 2008 4:42 PM
You misunderstand McCain and Palin. What's driving their campaign is not the desire to win but the desire to remain solvent--to avoid having to pull out of more states like they did from Michigan.
You avoid bankruptcy by increasing income short term. The way you do that is by making your donors more enthusiastic. Increasing their number only helps a little and appealing to the vast majority who don't donate is useless.
That's why the McCain campaign keeps repeating all the bullshit attacks, including against funding science, even though they know it's turning the voters off. It increases the donors' enthusiasm.
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 4:43 PM
Puns are one thing I just can't b.... endure.
Posted by: Tulse | October 28, 2008 4:44 PM
#5: She helped demonstrate in the most convincing possible way how ineffective abstinence-only education is.
#4: She may run in 2012, forcing the Republicans even further into the morass of unelectable extreme right social conservativism.
#3: She gave Tina Fey a lot of very funny material.
#2: She's not Joe Lieberman.
and the number one thing I like about Sarah Palin:
#1: She is actually a drag on McCain's popularity.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 28, 2008 4:46 PM
I think that the McCain/Palin anti-science appeals to the lowest common denominator ignorant supporter are an attempt to show how (apparently) far removed the concerns of eggheaded scientists and educators are from those of Joe Sixpack Plummer. M&P are in effect denying both the inter-connectedness of both knowledge and nature. We've already had eight years of an America crippled by the hobbling of science by ideological, doctrinaire ignorance. The rest of the world can't afford any more of this; neither can you Americans. The United States does not live in a bubble universe protected by a Republican god from the laws of physics and the wants and needs of the rest of the global population, both human and non-human. Reality is a large and complicated place, with subtle, intricate patterns of interaction and influence. To wield power effectively and justly in such a place requires a commensurate knowledge and respect of this complexity and intricacy. Otherwise one's actions may turn and bite you in the ass. Maybe this is where grizzly bear DNA research could really come in handy.....
Posted by: Joel | October 28, 2008 4:47 PM
Sarah Palin's a Brainiac
The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/1/
Posted by: cactusren | October 28, 2008 4:48 PM
Yup...plenty of less useful earmarks out there, like $200,000 to a Hunting and Fishing Museum in PA (about the same amount that went to fruit fly research). But I'm sure Palin feels that was a worthy cause.
tsg...to be fair to McCain, he actually hasn't asked for earmarks for projects in AZ (please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I lived there for many years while he was senator, and am unaware of him bringing money into the state by way of federal earmarks). But Palin is simply being insincere, and they both seem to be targeting scientific funding when they claim to be criticizing earmarks.
Posted by: eddie | October 28, 2008 4:52 PM
Awesome, shot-glass bear-pun bingo!
Don't stop until every state turns balou.
Posted by: King of Ferrets | October 28, 2008 4:54 PM
Do we really need to point out how much McCain/Palin sucks at science anymore? Seriously.
You have been tagged fer a meme.
Posted by: Bennie | October 28, 2008 4:55 PM
To SoMG---
McCain has accepted public funding, so his campaign can't technically raise any more private donations. He may be raising money for the party to spend in legislative campaigns around the country, but Obama is going to be able to outspend him 3 or 4 to 1 anywhere and anytime. By say, buying 30 minutes of airtime on the networks. Probably be the best thing on tv in the past 8 years.
Posted by: Raynfala | October 28, 2008 4:55 PM
*Sigh*. Everyone getting together to make these cute little "bear" puns. So adorable. It's definitely a Kodiak moment...
*bears down for the onslaught*
Posted by: Joel | October 28, 2008 4:56 PM
they both seem to be targeting scientific funding
Maybe to the unwashed masses, bear DNA just isn't that important? An easy target?
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 4:56 PM
It was just a general statement aimed at being funny/cynical. I didn't really expect anyone to take it seriously.
Posted by: Benjamin Allen | October 28, 2008 4:58 PM
Maybe McCain likes science but doesn't think the government should be supporting it.
(Don't yell at me! I voted Obama. I love science and thing the government should support it.)
Not only should, but must. Privatizing science and making it beholden to things like short-term profits, or public good will toward your research tradition (like evolution...) is the best way to kill important research. Not only because it just wont be funded anymore, but because you then become accountable (either publicly or to your corporate investor) for the results. This leads to fraud, which is rampant, absolutely rampant in medical research because of the profits involved. To say nothing of having to re-invent the wheel because knowledge becomes a proprietary trade secret.
What they are bitching about with "earmarks" is not that the money is hidden. The NSF budget and NIH budget is a line item in budget bills. What Palin and McCain dont like is that the executive branch does not have control over the disbursement of those funds.
Posted by: Bennie | October 28, 2008 5:01 PM
Aren't these bear puns just panda-ring to the lowest common denominator. (Is it cheating if it's the wrong genus?)
Posted by: tsg | October 28, 2008 5:04 PM
There's no such thing as cheating in puns.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 5:04 PM
For McCain and Co. Allah is the only legitimate justification for massive government spending.
(That's a stretch on so many levels, but I'm going to use my escape claws.)
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 5:07 PM
Excuse me? A discernable pattern of thinking qualifies as brainiac? My pet cat has a discernable pattern of thinking...most times. I question the motives of this article for the plain and simple reason that the things she says are completely idiotic. She's a moron who thinks deities are real, magic works, and believes following an ancient dogma actually makes her special.
Posted by: Joel | October 28, 2008 5:08 PM
Privatizing science and making it beholden to things like short-term profits, or public good will toward your research tradition (like evolution...) is the best way to kill important research.
Yeah, it's so much better dedicated to the art of killing other human beings.
Posted by: cactusren | October 28, 2008 5:09 PM
tsg @42: no worries. In general, I agree with your original comment on politicians only favoring earmarks that benefit their constituents. Just thought I'd point out that I don't actually think McCain is being hypocritical on this particular issue. He's still, of course, being anti-science, and will not get my vote.
Posted by: Anton Mates | October 28, 2008 5:18 PM
Said former editor in chief is also a consultant for the McCain campaign. That seems important somehow. And in 1999, she opposed the idea of Hillary Clinton being Gore's vice president on the grounds that Clinton "is more left wing than most DLC moderates, and she can bring an arrogant, inept political touch to the handling of important issues, such as the ill-fated healthcare reform."
Huh.
Posted by: jorge666 | October 28, 2008 5:18 PM
Remember only you can vote to make sure we all are able to arm bears or was that bear arms or bare arms????
Confused in Altoona
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 5:25 PM
jorge666,
Es osado preguntar eso.
(As it is to attempt a pun in another language.)
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 5:31 PM
http://www.demopolislive.com/gallery/images/1/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | October 28, 2008 5:34 PM
I think it's just so grizzly with all this Republican panda-ring to the ignorant. Even though she's be-spectacled, Palin can't see her intellectual sloth and brown nosing is going to leave a black mark in American politics, leaving her short-faced and on a plane back to Kodiak to live in a cave where the sun doesn't shine.
P.S. Count the bears.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 28, 2008 5:41 PM
Methinbks if these muppets are actually endorsed...then the good folk of the USA can kiss the creationism mantra firmly and fairly squarely on the butt...
The supreme courts will be 'reorganised' to display a slightly more favourable attitude to the 'science' of ID and Evolutionary theory education will be an also run but not a favoured one...
Science funding will be severely traumatised and research directed into proving the Genesis account actually boogies with conventional science....
There will be tears before bedtime...and then some...
Posted by: Clemens | October 28, 2008 5:42 PM
As long as people think of scientists as weirdly-haired nerds living in ivory towers and as long as they think that real inventions get done by small town people in their garages, the anti-science duo will be able to actually reach someone with their stupid agenda.
Posted by: Natalie | October 28, 2008 5:45 PM
Alan, do you have cites to support that? Private fundraising can have quite a bit of overhead, paticularly for a large project like the planetarium is planning, so it doesn't necessarily follow that there is less waste when getting the money privately rather than from the government.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | October 28, 2008 5:45 PM
YNNB:
grizzly, panda, spectacled, sloth, brown, black, short-faced, Kodiak, cave, sun.
(but grizzlies, browns, and Kodiaks are the same species)
Posted by: Zar | October 28, 2008 5:47 PM
The McCain campaign's disdain for science is just grizzly.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Oso you're going to be *that* way about it...
Posted by: Zar | October 28, 2008 5:53 PM
#54, #59:
Cripes. Someone beat me to it. How embearassing.
Seriously, though, how someone can praise Palin's intellectual prowess is just Knutty. The author of the editorial linked to in #35 actually used the "well, you haven't met her" defense. Of course I haven't met her! And the idea of the McCain/Palin ticket being feminist is a pile of Pooh.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 5:56 PM
Oso you're going to be *that* way about it...
Of course I am.
(You want osadía? You got it! :))
Posted by: jorge666 | October 28, 2008 5:59 PM
SE #52
If you are Catlick and female, you should be hibernating in a punnery somewere.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 28, 2008 6:04 PM
These are some of the dumbest puns I've ev-ursine.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 28, 2008 6:19 PM
You know, if you follow the science blogs closely, it looks more and more like we have a great story here. It's apparent that there are a lot of (if not most) scientists whooping and hollering it up for Obama, and certainly a few that have expressed disgust with McCain.
I think it would make a great story in the MSM. At least one I would enjoy viewing.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 28, 2008 6:19 PM
"These are some of the dumbest puns I've ev-ursine."
They really are horribil...is.
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 6:20 PM
Not entirely off topic.
The Christian Right Killed the Republican Party
Huffington Post Article.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 28, 2008 6:22 PM
I'm sure McCain only opposed the bear DNA studies because he thought it was all about those big hairy gay guys.
And sadly, the only bear pun I could come up with involved Sarah Palin wearing a lace teddy.
Although I have heard she's Paddington her expense account, and in her opinion has never made a Boo Boo on the campaign trail.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 6:26 PM
These are some of the dumbest puns I've ev-ursine.
Horrible, us? Clearly on you these are wasted ebears.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 28, 2008 6:28 PM
Off-topic (because I can't figure out how to make a pun out of it), I love the fact that the German word for polar bear is "Eisbear" -- literally "ice bear."
I think that's so cool.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 28, 2008 6:30 PM
The Christian Right Killed the Republican Party - Huffington Post article linked to by Alex.
I refuse to read this - the idea of having to be grateful to the Christian Right for something is just too dreadful!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | October 28, 2008 6:35 PM
C'mon people, cut her some slack.
If it took you six years and five schools to get through college and all your kids were truants and drop-outs (pardon me, "home-schooled"), and you were running against a couple of guys with post-graduate degrees who both teach at law schools (and that's not even their day jobs), your campaign would probably feature telling a lot of people whose lives hadn't turned out the way they planned that well-educated people were elitist snobs too.
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 6:35 PM
Oh come on Nick, it's good perspective. Just grin and bear it.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 28, 2008 6:37 PM
@ Joel #48,
With a some exceptions, the government doesn't hire scientists to make weapons by and large. Private companies do. It's a little thing called the military industrial complex.
Posted by: Joe Lunchpale (Alex) | October 28, 2008 6:40 PM
You ain't gots no idear what it is your talkin' 'bout Molly.
Posted by: SC | October 28, 2008 6:40 PM
Alright. I've had it with both of you sneaky Foxes. Really, with the last breath I have vulpine for you, but please stop beating me to the pun-ch. It's either this zorra'll have to call in the wolves.
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 6:42 PM
#74
My take on that comment was concern trolling for abortion.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 28, 2008 6:48 PM
Shit Alex, I just saw his post over at #14.
That ain't "concerned".
Posted by: Alex | October 28, 2008 7:00 PM
Yeah Chemist, for sure. As far as #14 goes, didn't that deity also create light, day, and night before the Sun? Morons.
Posted by: Claire | October 28, 2008 7:07 PM
Of all of the earmarks they keep bringing up , they are consistently science. Choose something else, like I don't know, a bridge to nowhere?? Have any of you actually looked at a list of the earmarks. Not all of them are bad, including funding research for childhood obesity, trout conservation, and helping poor areas of Kentucky get better sewer systems. Oh course ridiculous ones should be cut, but there are a lot that help fund science based research.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 28, 2008 7:10 PM
Ah, hmm. Researching Wikipedia for further bear puns, ("On that glorious ursidae when McCain and Palin retire into the shadows of failed political campaigns ..."), I chanced upon the bear-related coat of arms of the Abbey of St. Gall in Switzerland. Those monks predated the furries by 1300 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coa_Abbey_Saint_Gall.svg
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | October 28, 2008 7:15 PM
I'm not sure I agree that this is really about McShame being anti-science, but rather a cheap way of appealing to guns'n'god morons. Still, whatever their true motivations, we can sure that science would suffer under a McFailin' adminstration, whether that be through poor funding, political interference or the evisceration of science teaching.
OT: an interesting article on how spectacularly dumb individuals like Palin get so far in American politics.
Posted by: thalarctos | October 28, 2008 7:16 PM
Wow, Hank--that bear is, ummm, rampant!
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 28, 2008 7:16 PM
alan Kellog:
Of course, taking the government out of funding science education projects means lowering taxes; so people will have the money to donate to the museum or classroom.
meet someone who knows at least a little bit about the reality of public funding of ANYTHING (science included)
benjamin allen:
Privatizing science and making it beholden to things like short-term profits, or public good will toward your research tradition (like evolution...) is the best way to kill important research. Not only because it just wont be funded anymore, but because you then become accountable (either publicly or to your corporate investor) for the results. This leads to fraud, which is rampant, absolutely rampant in medical research because of the profits involved. To say nothing of having to re-invent the wheel because knowledge becomes a proprietary trade secret.
ben might not know how NIH and NSF get funded (it's not a hard google, btw, and there is of course interesting political power struggles within those institutions), but he's obviously aware of WHY there is public funding of science (and arts, for that matter).
and for the record, Alan, the vast bulk of science isn't done via donations to museums or classrooms.
If the general public had the slightest clue why funding science is important, and how and where to do so, there wouldn't even be an issue. Unfortunately, the vast majority not only don't know, they simply don't care to know.
take and apply to ANYTHING the federal government funds, for that matter.
with some degree of variability, you'll find the public simply doesn't really WANT to be responsible for knowing how and why their tax dollars are spent.
Oh, sure, they'll whine about superficial issues, or just about the total amount they pay, but they really don't want to know the details.
this, is exactly why the idealism of free market democracy simply will never work (and never has). By and large, most people will simply refuse to take the time and effort necessary to make truly responsible choices in such an environment, and would far rather nominate someone to do it for them.
Posted by: Pdiff | October 28, 2008 7:18 PM
Joel @ 35:
"The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP."
From the article:
"I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination."
Yeah, here's a real unbiased opinion on the intellect of Palin! Not to even mention the hypocrisy of Lafferty calling herself a Democrat .... a Lieberman Democrat maybe ... I remind you people used to talk about how smart Bush was too, when you got to know him all up close and personal. Not to sound too Forest Gumpish, but Stupid is as stupid does.
Pdiff
Posted by: ennui | October 28, 2008 7:38 PM
My friends, gosh darnit but the puns on this thread are getting a little thick, dontcha know, even for a Real American. It gives one paws, but olive.
The Vet Who Did Not Vet
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 7:38 PM
I suspect that, to the average voter in her bailiwick, this is a good thing.
Posted by: foxfire | October 28, 2008 7:59 PM
"Nature News highlights" for October 28 includes a special section devoted to "US Election 2008". In the "Questioning the Candidates" section of the special, Obama responded to Nature's invitation to answer 18 science-related questions in writing and the McCain campaign declined. Here is what that section of the Nature special contains regarding evolution:
'nuff said.
And for all you skeptic fans of Halloween, enjoy! ;-)
Posted by: mothra | October 28, 2008 8:03 PM
(with apologies to the Beach Boys)
Oh, Well, I'm that kind of gray, long of tooth and over blown.
Wiff Caribou and Toddken, you see I'm still alone.
I blurble at each whistle stop, cause to me, I'm not insane.
I incite them and I leave 'em, its my underground campaign!
They call me the panderer (my friends), yeah, the panderer.
I schlep around, around, around. . .
Oh, there's 'W' for my last eight, and Sarah for November
and some gal down from Budweiser whose name I can't remember.
When they ask what I wuv best (my friends) I'll say whatever gets me tender.
They call me the panderer (my friends), yeah, the panderer.
I schlep around, around, around. . .
Oh, from town to town I drone.
With a mind that's now threadbare,
Those science things they stump me,
like keepin planes up in the air.
Yep, I'm the kind of guy (my friends) who can only roam around.
Promoting hate and ignorance as I move from town to town.
And if (my friends) I stumble 'cross one of subtle ken.
I yammer platitudes real loud so learnin won't sink in.
They call me the panderer (my friends), yeah, the panderer.
I schlep around, around, around. . .
Posted by: JDP | October 28, 2008 8:06 PM
I think we need to stop framing it as anti-science and start framing it as anti-student and anti-jobs. About half of that $3mil bear "paternity test" provided over 200 students with a summer internship in a government laboratory learning important skills.
Most other science earmarks pay for student education, postdoc positions, and other JOBS that keep more Americans in science and technology fields and provide career support for many American technology-educated individuals working for the public good rather than the private sector.
Posted by: Monado | October 28, 2008 8:07 PM
That's an old video, from last September. The odd thing is, McCain voted for the bear research. It's simple: "count the bears by checking hair samples." And Montana needs to know how many of the endangered grizzly bear it has and whether the population is rising or falling before it can OK logging and mining in "protected" bear habitat--according to U.S. environmental laws. It's only useless research if you're going to toss the law and go ahead regardless.
Posted by: Mike | October 28, 2008 8:11 PM
Because she works with her, Lafferty may believe that Palin is smart. I've never met Palin. She hasn't been in my state (I live in state so blue that even the Republicans are Democrats). However, I've seen Palin's interviews with Katie Couric, Charles Gibson and, yes, even Sean Hannity. I also watched the Beiden-Palin debate.
She may be intelligent, but she hides it well when she's faces questions. She doesn't appear to think very fast and she does appear to be extremely ignorant about a lot. Possibly Lafferty is confusing intelligence with cunning and guile. I believe that Palin has both of those attributes.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 28, 2008 8:21 PM
ennui @86,
Bear in mind that it's likely to be because Real Americans and Pharyngulites are polar opposites.
Posted by: GMc | October 28, 2008 8:46 PM
Palin may not understand science but according to this site there are other attributes that would make someone not vote for Obama (he is a socialist): http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=301520 . And there is a poll!
Posted by: Steve_C | October 28, 2008 8:54 PM
HAHAHA. Any site that quotes BAUER is a piece of crap.
Obama is not a socialist you liar. Giving a tax cut to 95% of Americans is not socialism.
Shut the hell up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 8:57 PM
GMc, when I was an undergraduate, the campus was "radicalized". I got to know socialist literature waiting for buses and classes. If you think Obama is a socialist, you are simply a liar and bullshitter. Anything else you say will taken in evidence for a perjury trial.
Posted by: GMc | October 28, 2008 8:59 PM
@Steve_C: I hope you do not think I was suggesting that the site was correct. I may have that leaning but I am think Obama does not. The site just is another example of the religious right making last minute attempts to sway unthinking voters.
Posted by: Ani | October 28, 2008 8:59 PM
Hate to say this, but I agree with one of the previous commenters about the ageist remark. Call McCain ignorant, a Luddite, a tool, a pompous temperamental so-and-so, whatever, but I'm looking forward to the day (which will NEVER come, I'm afraid--no one realizes how offensive it is until it's too late) that ageist remarks will be seen to be as hurtful and malicious as racist and sexist ones are.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 9:02 PM
GMc, if you quoting somebody saying Obama is a socialist, I was out of line.
Posted by: GMc | October 28, 2008 9:05 PM
@Nerd of Redhead: Again don't misinterpret what I said. I can't even vote in your election and live in a country that has "socialized" medicine. I even belong to a political party that views itself as social democratic. Sorry if you did not understand the point I was trying to make.
Posted by: yoeruek | October 28, 2008 9:13 PM
to Hank Fox #70
Searching on Youtube gave me
Javi Reina - Eisbaer
by the way the longest intro I´ve ever heared. Lyrics start at 4:33
and
Nouvelle Vague - Eisbär
Even the french give tribute to good german 80´s music.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 28, 2008 9:15 PM
Polar bear in German is actually Eisbär, which is indeed a fun fact. And the most famous Eisbär of them all would be Knut, zoo fundraiser extraordinaire.
Posted by: LP | October 28, 2008 9:32 PM
This was forwarded to me by my cousin,a republican, with this note:
"One of my friends challenged me to provide an opposing view on the choice we have on November 4th, offering the following. It hasn't changed my mind but I am passing it on to allow an opportunity for all to judge for themselves.
Sorry for the lengthy post, and I hope it's not a re-post, but I found it to be a pretty compelling argument.
Posted by: LP | October 28, 2008 9:37 PM
I also apologize for the sloppy presentation.
Posted by: JonathanL | October 28, 2008 11:48 PM
I don't think I am koala-fied to answer that question.
Posted by: ChrisC | October 29, 2008 12:17 AM
Posted by: DanM | October 29, 2008 1:36 AM
When I first read the lead I thought McCain was complaining about studying Beer DNA...forfeiting, I suppose, the coveted Joe six-pack vote.
Ah well
Posted by: SC | October 29, 2008 2:17 AM
WHOOSH!
Posted by: John Morales | October 29, 2008 2:31 AM
Did I just hear something whooshing by?
I wonder what it was.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 29, 2008 2:33 AM
"Alright. I've had it with both of you sneaky Foxes. Really, with the last breath I have vulpine for you, but please stop beating me to the pun-ch. It's either this zorra'll have to call in the wolves."
Sorry to be more swift than you, but if your jealousy has you vixen to do harm, then I think you should brush it off.
Posted by: clinteas | October 29, 2008 2:41 AM
I apologize for being late to the thread,been away a cpl days,but hey,have you seen this,Hitch has called McCain"borderline senile":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8uHW0hbiA
Posted by: SC | October 29, 2008 3:03 AM
Sorry to be more swift than you, but if your jealousy has you vixen to do harm, then I think you should brush it off.
My word - Canidae go by without these terrible puns?
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | October 29, 2008 4:29 AM
The McCain/Palin candidacy and their policies and ideaologies are impossible to defend. I don't get why anyone would support these fools anymore. There is nothing good in their ideas and policies that can even remotely begin to make up for the bad stuff. The bad stuff is just too bad. Elect them for President and VP, and those among you who voted for them don't get to complain after that. If the worst would happen and McCain becomes president, you have only yourselves to blame. You will have no excuses. If you want an administration that is blatantly anti-science, against universal healthcare yet pro-life, and whose approach to foreign policy is the drunken elephant in the china shop, then at least admit that that's what you really, really want.
To the rest of you, good luck. I hope you want something better than that. I know I do.
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 29, 2008 5:45 AM
I thought it was polar bears that the grizzlies were the same species with.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 29, 2008 7:03 AM
Ani@98,
While ageism is certainly a real problem, McCain's age - unlike the sex and race of candidates - is a legitimate concern, because of its implications for whether he will finish his term, and remain competent as he does so. Actuarially, the chances are quite high (I estimate around 1/4 to 1/3) that he will not. Similarly, any signs of mental decline - of which there have apparently been quite a few - are highly relevant.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg | October 29, 2008 7:43 AM
Pooh, I'm late for all the punning. But anyway, the thought that there's still even a possibility that McCain might Winnie this election sends shivers down my spine every time I think about it. For anyone not living in a cave bear in mind what that'd mean; another four or eight years of a huge hindrance for the advancement of science in general. I caniform a coherent sentence as to how that makes me feel.
Posted by: Ian | October 29, 2008 7:47 AM
You guys are seriously misinformed. This thing with Palin has all been a gross misunderstanding. Palin thinks that DNA is an acronym for "Don't Need Academics".
Hope this clears things up fer y'all.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 29, 2008 8:12 AM
Griz and a number of other bears classified commonly known as Brown Bears are closely related sub-species. The Kodiak bear is one of these.
Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi
Some of the Brown bears are closely related to the Polar bear and there have been Brown Bear / Polar Bear hybrids.
Posted by: BMcP | October 29, 2008 9:53 AM
A more fundamental question could be "Is it the federal government's place to fund any of these research projects?"
Posted by: Chaz Mena | October 29, 2008 10:40 AM
Comn:
Does this surprise you? They will bring back blood-letting and having barbers administer First Aid instead of allowing reasonable health care. They're responding to their base: intolerant, highly misinformed, poorly read, bigoted.
Posted by: mothra | October 29, 2008 11:15 AM
@119. Your 'deeply perceptive question' has a one word answer, 'YES.'
When private industry alone funds research:
1) The 'research' can be both teleological and 'circular.' A goal of either proving something or getting a particular result, respectively.
2) The complete results of a private industry study are often not published and information will be in the private rather than public domain. Without googling, I do not immediately recall whether it was Crestor, Celebrex, or Paxil in which significant negative findings were hidden by industry.
3) Private industry rarely funds basic research. Few companies have the venture capital to do so.
4) Private industry rarely (if ever) funds long-term research projects- see #1 and 3.
One can argue minor details on each of these cases- like a IDiot complaining of peppered photos depicting moths on trees rather than rocks, but the points made cannot be dismissed.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | October 29, 2008 11:54 AM
SC #46
Oh, the humanity!(sobs)
Posted by: Amazona farinosa | October 29, 2008 12:35 PM
A couple of elections back my home state, California, proposed a bond measure to fund embryonic stem cell research. I voted 'no', not because I have some "values" stance against the science. In my opinion, bonds are for real, assured assets that will benefit the citizenry as a whole, like schools, roads, ports and other infrastructure projects. Not to say that the ROI from stem cell research funding couldn't be many times that of avoiding the result of a few poor sods who drive off the precipice when some decrepit bridge collapses. The promise of stem cell research is a risky venture which doesn't lend itself well to bond funding in my book. It passed.
Posted by: Hap | October 29, 2008 5:24 PM
McCain and Palin don't hate science.
They love stupidity.
There's a difference, y'know.
"McCain/Palin '08-The power of positive ignorance."
Posted by: John Knight | October 29, 2008 10:13 PM
Uh, obvious point: Opposing (unconstitutional) federal spending on scientific research is not the same thing as "opposing science." Not even close.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 30, 2008 9:17 AM
The moron John Knight@125 said:
"Uh, obvious point: Opposing (unconstitutional) federal spending on scientific research is not the same thing as "opposing science." Not even close."
Uh, two even more obvious points:
1) Palin is a known denialist of both evolutionary theory and anthropogenic global warming, demonstrating her utter contempt for science. And the text of what she said in this instance makes quite clear her contempt for the specific research she mentioned as well.
2) If it's "unconstitutional", why have none of your fellow-fruitcakes challenged it in court?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 30, 2008 9:24 AM
JK, got any proof for your imaginary god yet? If you think we are interested in what a lying godbot has to say you are delusional.
Posted by: J Fozz | October 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Isn't it the responsibility of a government to ensure that the sciences are properly funded and left alone in order to do the necessary research? Palin commenting on science is like the Pope discussing the particular merits of strippers.
Posted by: Hap | October 30, 2008 2:36 PM
And speaking of the power of positive stupidity...thx JK!
Posted by: JJR | October 30, 2008 3:16 PM
Responding above to:
"My problem is with how a project is funded. I'm fundamentally against hiding the funding in another piece of legislation that usually has no relevance to what's being funded."
...As the saying goes, those who like sausages and respect the law should not watch either being made.
(Shorter: sorry, bud, it's the way the game is played in Washington. Wise up already).
Posted by: tn chaussures | April 11, 2009 9:30 PM
1) Palin is a known denialist of both evolutionary theory and anthropogenic global warming,
Posted by: nike tn | April 28, 2009 9:07 AM
funded and left alone in order to do the necessary research?
Posted by: puma femmes | May 20, 2009 12:00 AM
all she cares about is diverting money to her bailiwick. This is a different kind of abuse of science
Posted by: ugg boots | May 20, 2009 12:03 AM
decrepit old man doesn't have a clue about the value of biological research. But the other interesting
Posted by: ed hardy clothing | May 20, 2009 9:34 PM
all she cares about is diverting money to her bailiwick. This is a different kind of abuse of science
Posted by: puma mens shoes | May 20, 2009 9:36 PM
where it's seen only as a tool for local profit … and you just know that she would not