The poll is open : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?

Antony Flew, "The Presumption of Atheism" God, Freedom, and Immortality, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1984), p. 74.

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« And so it begins… | Main | Context »

The poll is open

Category: Pointless polls
Posted on: November 5, 2008 1:04 PM, by PZ Myers

The New Humanist Bad Faith Award poll is now open for voting. I nominated Sarah Palin, but I think she's well on her way to negligible irrelevancy now, so you might as well pick one of the others.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/85128

Comments

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | November 5, 2008 1:08 PM

Palin is not irrelevant. She will be back and with greater numbers.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Nah, I don't think Coulter's feeling low (I'm responding to her entry in the link). She's probably seeing dollar signs, as there's nothing like a liberal ("liberal"?) in charge for her brand of bizarre conspiracies and rabies to catch fire in a certain (fairly small) demented segment of the population.

Not that she doesn't believe what she says, and hopes for it to do well (mostly true, I think). But she believes more in her own importance, and I think Obama will be the enemy that can feed her ego.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Greta Christina | November 5, 2008 1:14 PM

Alas, Palin is not irrelevant. If for no other reason:

If Ted Stevens wins his re-election bid -- which, incredible as it may seem, he might -- and if the Senate chooses to kick him out for being, you know, a felon... then the chances are excellent that Palin will run for his seat.

She's tasted the national limelight now, and you can be damned sure she's not going to give it up. She'll be back. You betcha!

Posted by: Kyoseki | November 5, 2008 1:18 PM

I would like to nominate the State of California for being so fucking deluded they think that restricting the definition of marriage is actually protecting religious freedoms.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | November 5, 2008 1:19 PM

Can we write in Bill Donohue?

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 5, 2008 1:21 PM

What, Elizabeth Dole didn't qualify?

Posted by: Zifnab | November 5, 2008 1:23 PM

Palin is not irrelevant. She will be back and with greater numbers.

I think Ben Kenobi gave a similar warning.

There's also the chance that she runs for Senate to replace Stevens. Even if Stevens manages to pull out a squeaker after absentee ballots are counted, I suspect he won't make it back to the Senate just by digging in his heels during the appeals process. He's a convicted felon and 70+ years old to boot. Palin's just got to wait him out.

Posted by: Schmeer | November 5, 2008 1:24 PM

If Elizabeth Dole would qualify, Kay Hagan is not too far from a nomination herself. However, with such great candidates to choose for this illustrious award, who needs to vote for either of those two nit-wits?

Posted by: LightningRose | November 5, 2008 1:27 PM

Palin's political career is far from over, but I voted for Ann Coulter.

#10

Posted by: Me again | November 5, 2008 1:29 PM

Hawking and the Pope
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27519504/

You decide who to nominate.

#11

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 5, 2008 1:30 PM

Does she have to even run for that Senate seat? I saw commenters somewhere else saying that if they sack the criminal chap the governor gets to appoint a successor (and it can be herself)

#12

Posted by: Mike | November 5, 2008 1:31 PM

Speaking of polls, can we crash this one, please?

Palin in 2012?
http://boortz.com/nuze/200811/11052008.html#palin

#13

Posted by: Zifnab | November 5, 2008 1:31 PM

I would like to nominate the State of California for being so fucking deluded they think that restricting the definition of marriage is actually protecting religious freedoms.

It just lets them pull an Ahmedijad and declare there are no committed loving gay couples in California. Gay Marriage is the ban of bigotry because it normalizes the abnormal. Now religious homophobes and good ole boy haters can continue to preach nonsense about homosexuality always leading to promiscuity, rape, bestiality, necrophilia and whatever other icky things they can name. And who can argue with them? Gay couples can't get married, so they must be a pack of hussies.

#14

Posted by: Zifnab | November 5, 2008 1:33 PM

Does she have to even run for that Senate seat? I saw commenters somewhere else saying that if they sack the criminal chap the governor gets to appoint a successor (and it can be herself)

I think the Alaska state constitution stipulates that the seat must be filled by a special election within a certain number of days.

#15

Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 5, 2008 1:41 PM

The poll is Briton-centric (obviously, since NH is a British group), making it a little difficult for we on this side of the pond to make an informed pick. Nonetheless, I voted for...Rowan Atkinson.

My rationale is that while the rest of the nominess are obvious whackjobs, theocrats, otherwise Lost Causes behaving pretty much as expected, Atkinson is supposed to be a moderate who really ought to know better. (In Ontario, we rejected a Sharia-family-law proposal several years ago.)

#16

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 5, 2008 1:43 PM

Thanks, zifnab

#17

Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | November 5, 2008 1:45 PM

The award should be shared between George Bush and Dick Cheney.

(Cheney slipped up with the 'unknown knowns' -- information we had that he never looked at.

#18

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 5, 2008 1:46 PM

Eamonn, I'm pretty sure you mean Rowan Williams.

Rowan Atkinson is Blackadder and also one of the strongest voices against extra protection for religions against insult

#19

Posted by: Tim | November 5, 2008 1:48 PM

Sarah Palin in 2012?, not quite Nehemiah Scudder, but close enough. (Refers to Robert A. Heinlein's "Future history" story lines.)

#20

Posted by: MickyW | November 5, 2008 1:51 PM

Didn't know Mr Bean was on there; I'll have to go take another look. I voted for Ann Coulter who has to be one of the most despicable people to ever be given a public platform.

#21

Posted by: Ibid | November 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Clinton vs Palin in 2016. I'll bet you dinner.

#22

Posted by: Kyoseki | November 5, 2008 1:59 PM

Mr. Bean isn't on there, not unless he was recently appointed Archbishop of Canterbury :)

#23

Posted by: Ruben | November 5, 2008 2:05 PM

hmm there's something funny going on here. I nominated Palin too, so she should have at least two votes. Only one is accounted for. In fact, only 6 votes are accounted for, overall.

#24

Posted by: qedpro | November 5, 2008 2:06 PM

I voted for Palin - the cock sucking whore.

let's hope this is the only kind of vote she'll ever get from now on. Her 15 minutes of fame is over.

However, her infamy will last a little longer than that.

McCain lost because of her. By choosing her, he pandered to people who were already going vote for him. Let's face it, the evangelical christian right weren't going to vote for a black man. But by doing so McCain ignored a whole section of democrats that were unsure of Obama and that wanted to vote for a man with his experience but needed a reason to trust him. He shattered that trust with the choice of Palin.

Palin - a mistake to last a lifetime.

#25

Posted by: Santiago | November 5, 2008 2:07 PM

Sorry to say this, but Palin WILL be the Republican presidential candidate for 2012, no doubt about it. Everything that has happened during the election favours the Republicans picking her, from the fact that a young and "inexperienced" politician can become president to the sheer enthusiasm she inspired in conservative ranks.

On a lighter note, though, I'm also pretty confident that she'll lose, further isolating and regionalising the Republican party, although I do expect the scariest presidential campaign ever.

#26

Posted by: Ruben | November 5, 2008 2:10 PM

Forget that. The right amount of votes is showing now. Go figure.

#27

Posted by: John Pieret | November 5, 2008 2:12 PM

I think she's well on her way to negligible irrelevancy now

Maybe not. Since Senator Intertubes appears poised to win re-election but will likely be expelled from the Senate post-haste, there will probably be a special election next year for his seat. If Sarah really wants to be a leader in the Party, running for senate would be the way to go. Given Alaskans' track record in bad choices -- including convicted felons -- it's hardly a stretch to think they'll elect failed VP candidates. Tina Fey certainly hopes so.

#28

Posted by: quicklime | November 5, 2008 2:18 PM

The state of Texas has got to be at or around number one. I'm embarrassed to be a native.

#29

Posted by: Tim H | November 5, 2008 2:19 PM

----Palin is not irrelevant. She will be back and with greater numbers.----

WTF?!? Palin's pregnant again already?

#30

Posted by: bladesman | November 5, 2008 2:19 PM

While they're all worthy of the award, I went for the one choice whose lunacy actually has the potential to cause harm directly. Step up those evil fucktards at St Monica's.

#31

Posted by: JSug | November 5, 2008 2:19 PM

I was going to ask why McLeroy wasn't on the list, but then I realized it's a UK site. Blimey. Or something.

#32

Posted by: Language Police | November 5, 2008 2:24 PM

Qedpro -
"cock sucking whore"

Linguistically challenged though you may be, polluting PZ's blog with your vulgar screed is inappropriate. Save the potty mouth for turining on your slut-boyfriend.

Ooh baby talk dirty to me.

#33

Posted by: JB | November 5, 2008 2:32 PM

#15 - (wiping the spray off the screen) Mr. Bean doesn't quite cut it against the others.

Govenors of St. Monicas. The rest are mostly just bonkers. While that leads to all sorts of evil and hatred, at least they don't want to inflict unpleasant death on those they should be caring for.

#34

Posted by: qedpro | November 5, 2008 2:34 PM

they're just words used to convey information and emotion.
if i had translated cock-sucking whore to german or some other language would that be better so as not to offend your moral superiority?

#35

Posted by: clippo | November 5, 2008 2:42 PM

Re #14 and others.

If Stevens gets kicked out of the Senate, the state governor gets to appoint an acting replacement until a special election is held. election must be held w/in 90 days.

I think it is possible and likely that Palin would appoint herself as temporary senator, run for the job, get it, and we have her in the Senate. Then she runs for president in 2012/2016. Which is fine with me because the great majority of Americans recognize her for the obnoxious ignoramus that she is and her nomination would relegate the Republicans to being a ineffective fringe party of the extreme right, thereby leaving the field open for a new and much needed third party that would actually represent the interests of the American people over the interests of the corporation.

Just dreaming? Well that's what the day after the election is all about isn't it?

Cheers

#36

Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 5, 2008 2:49 PM

Eamonn, I'm pretty sure you mean Rowan Williams. Rowan Atkinson is Blackadder and also one of the strongest voices against extra protection for religions against insult

D'oh, brain-fart! Sorry, I can't always tell British stand-up comedians apart ;-).

#37

Posted by: Piesquared | November 5, 2008 4:00 PM

I feel it should be pointed out that in the event Ted Stevens is still elected (as somehow still seems likely) and the Senate throws him out (as is certainly possible)... I believe the Governor of his home state gets to pick his replacement - and that's still Palin.

Further, it is somewhat common for governors in this situation to resign as governor and then be appointed to the senate themselves (by their former Lt. governor) as the replacement. Especially if they're a young politician with national ambitions.

So I don't think Palin is irrelevant.

#38

Posted by: Qwerty | November 5, 2008 4:21 PM

I voted for Ann Coulter. With apologies to Cassandra Peterson, Ann Coulter looks like a conservative drag queen playing Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. And her politics are dark, awful, and scary. Well, not really. She's just another big-mouthed conservative book writer who gets pimple-faced homophobic boys excited by calling some liberal they don't like a fag. Pathetic.

#39

Posted by: SASnSA | November 5, 2008 4:23 PM

As I live in the US, for me it has to be Palin or Coulter. Last night's victory puts Palin on the back burner for a while. Coulter on the other hand is a perennial source of bad faith, and Obama's win will only add to her vitriol. I therefore had to pick Ann Coulter.

#40

Posted by: Aero | November 5, 2008 4:26 PM

Too bad Joe lieberman isn't on the list.

#41

Posted by: Qwerty | November 5, 2008 4:32 PM

"I think [Palin]'s well on her way to negligible irrelevancy now..."

Maybe - to keep in line with her conservative creationist principles - this should be "she's on her way to irreducible irrelevancy."

#42

Posted by: Scaryduck | November 5, 2008 4:49 PM

I would encourage all voters to click on Stephen Green. The words "barking mad" do not do him justice.

#43

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 5, 2008 4:56 PM

Hmmm. Where P-Zed says "negligible irrelevancy" (Palin will be in a state of irrelevance and therefore negligible) I would have said "negligible relevancy", as her quantity of relevance on the national stage would be sufficiently small to ignore. Ain't language wonderful?

#44

Posted by: black wolf | November 5, 2008 7:33 PM

I want to point out that the New Humanist site repeats the same error of calculation Richard Dawkins inadverently made. Yahya is not offering a trillion dollars. Under the current exchange rates, which have long been revised, the amount is about $4.4 Million iIrc.
Several Turkish visitors have pointed this out at Richard's website, and the error has been acknowledged.
Posted this at NH too.

#45

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 5, 2008 7:38 PM

Ain't language wonderful?

How about the difference between flammable and inflammable? :-)

#46

Posted by: Kel | November 5, 2008 7:38 PM

Voted for that idiot Turkish creotard.

#47

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 5, 2008 7:50 PM

I voted for Adnan Oktar. Anyone who uses fishing lures to "disprove" evolution is showing bad faith.

#48

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 5, 2008 8:15 PM

I want to point out that the New Humanist site repeats the same error of calculation Richard Dawkins inadverently made. Yahya is not offering a trillion dollars. Under the current exchange rates, which have long been revised, the amount is about $4.4 Million iIrc. Several Turkish visitors have pointed this out at Richard's website, and the error has been acknowledged.

Well, there you go now. It didn't sound credible as Dawkins mistakenly represented it;)

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

#49

Posted by: Mobius | November 6, 2008 8:19 AM

As of casting my vote, it is a virtual tie between Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, with Harun Yahya running a distant third.

#50

Posted by: Sexed-up Athiest | November 6, 2008 10:44 AM

I found it to be such a close race between Palin and Coulter! I voted for Palin because I, also, don't think she's irrelevant just yet.

#51

Posted by: Kristine | November 6, 2008 2:28 PM

I voted for Ann Coulter. Where in blazes has she been lately? Did she die?

#52