Taking Pride in Ignorance – Part II

2 responses to “Taking Pride in Ignorance – Part II”

1. 

   Robert

   October 29, 2008

   Except that, like just about every Palin outrage I’ve seen so far, its another urban myth.  The funding was not for general genetic research, but for specific agro-business projects, which had been rejected through the normal science funding processes.  What was being complained about was that the funding had been slipped back in through "earmarks", where a financial proposal is put into the middle of a totally unrelated bill, in the hope that it will get passed without scrutiny (and usually does because senators bribe each other with approval of each other’s earmarks).If ignorance worries you, be concerned that the other VP candidate, who was supposed to bring experience and knowledge to the ticket, was reported as having great command of the facts during the debate.  It turns out that, where Palin would at least admit when she didn’t know something, Biden would simply make something up out of whole cloth (some 14 major points were made, which varied in fantasy level or mendacity).  It is worrying that those reporting had so little command of the facts (or willingness to report against their preference) that they missed all of those.  But then the election would have been a more palatable experience if perhaps half the reporting effort wasted on bogus stories about banning books, parentage of grandchildren, or the purchase of tanning beds, had been spent on the other three candidates.

   Reply
2. 

   Geoff

   October 29, 2008

   Except that, Robert, I don’t accept your marking this as another urban myth. I’m sorry, but if you think that Palin was subtle in her condemnation of research into olive fruit flies rather than a "hur hur"  nudge nudge wink wink folksy invitation to laugh at scientism, then you are not the person that I thought you were. Palin, on all the evidence that I’ve seen, is appalling.

   Reply