The question arises, would it not be better for these farmers to move to Texas or Florida where other olive growers aren't having problems with fruit flies than for taxpayers to have to pay for something that isn't world shattering to them. At the same time by giving money for this study, what do we need to give farmers in Texas and Florida to be fair?
As for the earmarks Sarah Palin was talking about, these are the same earmarks, John McCain(S-AZ), Ron Paul (Rep-TX), and Tom Coburn(S-OK) have been speaking about for years. The fruit fly study was to study cheaper pesticides for farmer in the $18 million olive industry of California. This cost the taxpayers $750,000.
Tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. Fireflies and Labybugs are beetles, not flies or bugs. Horned Toads aren't toads, but lizards. Starfish aren't fish. Koala Bears aren't bears, but marsupials. Peanuts are legumes, not nuts. I could write a million of these examples. The point is...what sometime is called doesn't necessarily reflex what it is.
Also, for those that relate her son, Trig, with autism....Trig has Down syndrome. This two disorders are not related. While some children with Down Syndrome might have autism too, Trig has not been announced to have both.
Sarah Palin talked about a fruit fly, but your video was about Drosophila melanogaster, the "flies" used in research on genetics. That fly is called a fruit fly in layman terms, but isn't. The fly earmarked for study was a true fruit fly,
Bactrocera oleae. If you check the web, you will find many critics of her's, admitted she was right here and many other critics were wrong in criticizing her for this.
You are right, she was not refering specifically to the fruit fly research being conducted in regards to the treatment of autism. She was actually refering to crusial research concerning the prevention of agricultural infestation.
That's not really the point though, the point is that Palin thinks that all research into flies is a joke, she thinks that biological research itself is a waste of time and money.
Their whole campeign was about hatred and fear of science and technological progress.
Really whose fault is it that she was close to power? Ours. Either we're smart enough to elect someone who will lead well, or we're just as stupid as the person we elected. I don't know the context of which she was speaking, but there must have been a reason why she addressed the issue. Since she's not knowledgeable on this someone must of provided her with info and completely failed to explain. Not saying she's smart, just I think she had good intentions.
umm.,, kay? I never said put her in power, I just said i understood where she was coming from at some level. Also there will never be anyone in power that can understand everything about all the fields and subjects that they will have to confront. More likely they're in power due to their charisma. It is the responsibility of the people who put them in power to help them understand when they don't understand. You can also blame everyone in the studio and on her team who let her make this mistake
I understand too, she had a good point her example just sucked XD There probably are a lot of pointless research going on, but instead of talking about the method the scientists are using she should of instead focus on the reason for the research. Obviously she doesn't understand a lot of research and data are collected in what appears to be simplistic forms. Though honestly a freshmen biology/genetics course in high school should of taught her the importance of research on fruit flies
"Obviously she doesn't understand a lot of research and data are collected in what appears to be simplistic forms"
These two statements contradict each other. Even if her "point" is correct, she did not reach it for the correct reasons nor can she reasonably demonstrate why her point is correct. So, even if her point is correct (which is still in debate) her argument is invalid and she shouldnt be making it.
those two quotes are different. The first one is saying how I agree that sometimes money goes into funding pointless research and the second is about how she doesn't appear to understand how research is conducted. Also your reasoning may be valid for grading some paper, but I'm talking about sharing of opinions. Maybe she didn't execute her idea properly, but at least she go it out there and just because her example is "invalid" doesn't mean her point is since we can think for ourselves
Please, that's an insult not only to fruit flies, but all life on this planet. I hate to think that we share the same base atom, nevermind that we both might be in the same domain :P
Research into the genetic origins of heritable human genetic diseases using fruit flies as modern organisms has "little or nothing to do with the public good"?! Sarah...just...just die.
The question arises, would it not be better for these farmers to move to Texas or Florida where other olive growers aren't having problems with fruit flies than for taxpayers to have to pay for something that isn't world shattering to them. At the same time by giving money for this study, what do we need to give farmers in Texas and Florida to be fair?
Wissdok 2 years ago
As for the earmarks Sarah Palin was talking about, these are the same earmarks, John McCain(S-AZ), Ron Paul (Rep-TX), and Tom Coburn(S-OK) have been speaking about for years. The fruit fly study was to study cheaper pesticides for farmer in the $18 million olive industry of California. This cost the taxpayers $750,000.
Wissdok 2 years ago
Tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. Fireflies and Labybugs are beetles, not flies or bugs. Horned Toads aren't toads, but lizards. Starfish aren't fish. Koala Bears aren't bears, but marsupials. Peanuts are legumes, not nuts. I could write a million of these examples. The point is...what sometime is called doesn't necessarily reflex what it is.
Wissdok 2 years ago
Also, for those that relate her son, Trig, with autism....Trig has Down syndrome. This two disorders are not related. While some children with Down Syndrome might have autism too, Trig has not been announced to have both.
Wissdok 2 years ago
Sarah Palin talked about a fruit fly, but your video was about Drosophila melanogaster, the "flies" used in research on genetics. That fly is called a fruit fly in layman terms, but isn't. The fly earmarked for study was a true fruit fly,
Bactrocera oleae. If you check the web, you will find many critics of her's, admitted she was right here and many other critics were wrong in criticizing her for this.
Wissdok 2 years ago
You are right, she was not refering specifically to the fruit fly research being conducted in regards to the treatment of autism. She was actually refering to crusial research concerning the prevention of agricultural infestation.
That's not really the point though, the point is that Palin thinks that all research into flies is a joke, she thinks that biological research itself is a waste of time and money.
Their whole campeign was about hatred and fear of science and technological progress.
jacobins3000 2 years ago
Sarah Palin is so stupid she wouldn't know a house fly from a pomace fly from an olive fly from a black fly from a tsetse fly .
They're all the same maggots to her, that's all you need to know for her idea of "common sense".
Palin wasn't right to mock basic science research, she's a retard.
robertmike57 2 years ago
@Wissdok Fruit fly is a common name. There is no "true" fruit fly.
ValorUnlimited 2 years ago
Also I'm not into creationism, but everyone can make their own decisions I guess.
dancealittlemore 2 years ago
Really whose fault is it that she was close to power? Ours. Either we're smart enough to elect someone who will lead well, or we're just as stupid as the person we elected. I don't know the context of which she was speaking, but there must have been a reason why she addressed the issue. Since she's not knowledgeable on this someone must of provided her with info and completely failed to explain. Not saying she's smart, just I think she had good intentions.
dancealittlemore 2 years ago
umm.,, kay? I never said put her in power, I just said i understood where she was coming from at some level. Also there will never be anyone in power that can understand everything about all the fields and subjects that they will have to confront. More likely they're in power due to their charisma. It is the responsibility of the people who put them in power to help them understand when they don't understand. You can also blame everyone in the studio and on her team who let her make this mistake
dancealittlemore 2 years ago
I remember seeing this speech awhile back. The moment I heard Sarah Palin's opinion of fruit fly research was the moment she lost my respect forever.
CommanderSquidlet 2 years ago
I understand too, she had a good point her example just sucked XD There probably are a lot of pointless research going on, but instead of talking about the method the scientists are using she should of instead focus on the reason for the research. Obviously she doesn't understand a lot of research and data are collected in what appears to be simplistic forms. Though honestly a freshmen biology/genetics course in high school should of taught her the importance of research on fruit flies
dancealittlemore 2 years ago
"she had a good point her example just sucked "
"Obviously she doesn't understand a lot of research and data are collected in what appears to be simplistic forms"
These two statements contradict each other. Even if her "point" is correct, she did not reach it for the correct reasons nor can she reasonably demonstrate why her point is correct. So, even if her point is correct (which is still in debate) her argument is invalid and she shouldnt be making it.
qjuice14 2 years ago
those two quotes are different. The first one is saying how I agree that sometimes money goes into funding pointless research and the second is about how she doesn't appear to understand how research is conducted. Also your reasoning may be valid for grading some paper, but I'm talking about sharing of opinions. Maybe she didn't execute her idea properly, but at least she go it out there and just because her example is "invalid" doesn't mean her point is since we can think for ourselves
dancealittlemore 2 years ago
SHE is a fruit fly :)
..A mutated one that is.
emilen2 2 years ago 2
Please, that's an insult not only to fruit flies, but all life on this planet. I hate to think that we share the same base atom, nevermind that we both might be in the same domain :P
theretard666 2 years ago 2
Research into the genetic origins of heritable human genetic diseases using fruit flies as modern organisms has "little or nothing to do with the public good"?! Sarah...just...just die.
majorvoltage 2 years ago
I'm no fan of Palin but I understand the logic of the argument.
It's not a dispute about science it's one of economics. Most funding for scientific research comes from the private sector.
So for example, if your going to spend xyz on abc research are you going to get xyz results from the particular project?
Maybe, maybe not, it's speculative at best.
This ties into whether scientific research is more efficient at the private level or the public level in general.
LexPhilogus 2 years ago
Ironically one of her sons s FUCKING AUTISTIC.
squippy117 2 years ago 6
And she's just FUCKING RETARDED.
Lolz
Zephemus 2 years ago 2
Didn't an infant in her family have autism?? And she shunned this research?? Ignorant dumby.
rbishop 2 years ago 2
OH the irony her kid is autistic and she is against the research.
HaT223 2 years ago 2
Somehow, hearing Sarah Palin talk about science, makes everyone who hears it dumber.
marley54fd 2 years ago
its painfully obvious that sarah palin cant get any dumber
Aranel1200 2 years ago
A great example of the misconception of science!
m0ufin 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA Epic Fail! Why do people still care about what Sarah Palin has to say?
Shes a human wasteland. No one cares... At least no one of intellectual merit anyway.
Deflecto3 2 years ago 11
So that only limits it to 1/2 give or take 1/8th of the American public.
Turminak 2 years ago
shes kinda hot for her age though lol
ChristinaWatkinson 2 years ago
We'll care when she's the Republican nominee for president in 2012. Sad but inevitable.
octarhaberee 2 years ago