Palin Trashes Science
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 10-25-2008 - 4:57pm |
In her first policy speech she trashes autism research in France involving fruit flies. Sounds reasonable if you don't know anything about autism, or research.
Here is the truth:
1. The research was in the United States, not France. Can you please get your facts right Palin?
2. Fruit flies, like rats, are standard fare in basic research. Trashing research because fruit flies are involved is really dumb.
3. The research in question actually has shown great promise in discovering the causes of autism.
Here it all is in a revealing segment: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27367248
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/
Palin is so uninformed it's ridiculous. And by the way, this is like the umpteenth thing she and McCain have said would be exempt from their "across the board" spending freeze.
PS It's a hoot that she says Republicans are for kids with special needs. She should know that Bush basically screwed us on that front by delaying embryonic stem cell research for 8 years. Bush and the Republicans held up the research on religious grounds. All the while Rove was running around calling the religious right "nuts." As David Kuo, the former faith based advisor to the White House who became disgusted with the Republicans and quit revealed, these people are just hypocrites.

Pages
The clip simply pointed out that fruitfly research had also been used to research autism. Fruitfly research is used to research many different things, thanks to certain characteristics of fruitflies.
Of course.
This is a waste of federal money.
"BTW, $211,000 is enough to pay for maybe 2 microscopes and the salary of one researcher in this type of research."
Or a bit more than enough to clothe the family of a republican vice presidential candidate for a convention. LOL
Her expression communicates that she thinks the research is a ridiculous waste of money.
Again:
Prove it. If you're going to claim that you're simply "accurately describing" someone with a negative term like that, then you should be easily able to prove your claim that it is accurate.
Post up empirical evidence which would support your contention of "moron" or "idiot" as not pejorative, but simply accurate to describe Olbermann. But first, you'd probably better define those two terms. Go ahead.
McCain LOST???
~The money sent to Paris, France is PORK..Oink Oink.
Pages