Here's how much of a dinglecheese Sarah Palin is:
Watch this

Okay, do you know how I was forwarded to this clip?
Oh, I don't know, just some lab tech I know who does experiments with fruit flies. What does her lab's studies revolve around? Oh, you know, that silly autism thing. I kid you not, Sarah Dipsh!t.

Palin just got pwned by Gemini Cricket and friend.
:snap:

Okay, I saw that a couple days ago, and I gotta call foul on the fruit fly thing. What she said was dumb, but pulling out the "it's for autism" card is also dumb. She was referring to an earmark for research through California on the Olive Fruit Fly that is a major pest in California. It has nothing to do with autism.

What she said was dumb, anti-science, and xenophobic (I kid you not, Paris!). But the autism line is a non sequitur that is easily rebuked and highly waggish.

There is a perfectly valid response to what she said, namely that ensuring that California's olive crop isn't destroyed will ensure that we can actually continue to produce here in the US instead of having to import yet another resource from out of the country, and if THAT doesn't serve public interests I don't know what does.

I disagree. Her comment was a dig on fruit fly research in general. Watch the clip. Her tone was pointing out how silly it is to spend money on fruit fly research. I think it's a valid response to her snarky comment.

Even without that, saying it doesn't benefit anyone is ridiculous.

She was talking about earmarks, calling out specific ones. The olive fly research has been called out on several watchlists by anti-pork barrel groups, her remarks were pointedly made with those lists in mind.

Again, her comment was way off the mark, and it's absurd that she would say that attempting to prevent the destruction of a major cash crop is not in the public interest. However the existence of other fruit fly research that happens to be about autism is not a valid counterpoint to her supposed point about earmarks. It's a petty jab at her that the blogs have picked up on to score points and it doesn't sit well with me.

To me, more than just pointing out the earmark, the comment was made to appeal to a certain group that the earmark is wrong because research with fruit flies is absurd and therefore discountable. Why else would she bring that up without explaining why it's specifically pork barrel spending?

I know that, and you know that. But you and I also know that it doesn't matter. She was speaking within the context of earmarks and has a very specific example to refer back to. By responding with an example that is not within that context, you open yourself up to the, "You're changing the subject. This isn't about pro or anti science, this is about earmarks and pork!" It's dumb, it's disingenuous, but it's politics. I wish we could just call everything like it is, but that ain't reality. We've got to be smarter than them and not fall for those traps.


ETA: The smarter way to break through that is to start with the valid-within-the-context point that researching olive fruit flies absolutely serves the public good. Then, once you've made that salient case, move on to say, "...but beyond that, there is an implication there that there is no value to fruit fly research in general..." But the bloggers that have picked up on that aren't playing it that way, they're going straight for the kill with the autism card and it's easy to call them on that and turn that back on them with, "Aha! You're turning it into a personal attack on her!"

I agree with GC. She may have started by talking about earmarks, but the tone of her reference to fruit fly research was clearly anti-scientific, implying it's a waste of money to give money to pointy-headed scientists so that they can study useless things. Given her promises to spend money on autism and special needs children (as an exception to McCain's spending freeze), the comeback about autism research is a good one, though not the only one.

I get that she was doing that, but just because we're right doesn't mean it's smart to just straight out call her on it without examining the context and paying attention to how the response will be perceived. Politics is a bitch like that.

Moreon Palin's keen grasp of the Constitution:

The media is infringing on her first amendment rights by criticizing what she says :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

:rolleyes:


Towards the end of the column: