This is great. Terry Holt calling the fruit fly thing "unconsequential". And is he arguing that science is a belief?
Let's put all of Palin's belief's aside. What does it say of their ability to organize and administrate when their speech writers are able to make such incredible blunders. No one catches it! They just let her go out there and say the craziest shit.

Criticizing research for autism. You can't make this shit up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hitchens, palin, religion, science, genetics' to 'hitchens, palin, religion, science, genetics, fruit fly, autism, terry holt, larry king' - edited by burdturgler

Olberman shows Palin's clip here:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Countdown-Palins-Anti-Science-Mindlessness

Biologist PZ Meyers, responds:

Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies)...

This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we've got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity.

Did you catch the joke of the year? At the beginning of the clip, the creationist in the lower left says "she's not stupid at all."

You can vote against it if you like.

Sure will!

yes of course people have a right to their own beliefs but but but your beliefs have a HUGE impact on the decisions you make. She would and will make decisions based on her belief system which right now does not fall in line with what our government is. We are maybe the only secular country in the world right now and it's a damned good thing we are. I think all too often people forget that the first amendment is not just freedom of religion it's freedom FROM religion. Religious interests should have no role in politics today.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
yes of course people have a right to their own beliefs but but but your beliefs have a HUGE impact on the decisions you make. She would and will make decisions based on her belief system which right now does not fall in line with what our government is. We are maybe the only secular country in the world right now and it's a damned good thing we are. I think all too often people forget that the first amendment is not just freedom of religion it's freedom FROM religion. Religious interests should have no role in politics today.


I'm pretty sure many European countries are much more secular than we are. President Bush states that god helps him in his policy decisions. When your highest government official takes advice from an imaginary being, I'd be hesitant to call that government secular. The horrible truth is that compared to Europe, we're in a fucking theocracy.

I don't have a problem with religion being taught in public schools, but how the heck would it ever work? When would it be taught? Which religion? Surely there isn't enough funding to teach all religions present in a multi-cultural country (and classroom) like the USA, or any other. What constitutes as a religion? Fundamentally, I think it would be impossible to teach religion in the classroom without infringing on others beliefs and the idea of the separation of church and state.

If you want religion in the classroom, enroll your child in a private school like St. Mary's, or any other equivalent. That's what they're for.

And the fruitfly debate-if there ever was be a debate-is ridiculous. Either Palin is working with her writers to make political suicide-so she can break off and pursue her own goals-or her writers don't have a flipp'n clue what they are putting on paper. Clearly there has been no research or foresight in calling the fruitfly research a waste of resources.

Or, she actually knows the-what she would call "facts"-and believes it anyway, in which case she was born about 400 years too late.

Fuck that asshole in the top-right spouting that whole wish-washy, politically correct, overtly multicultural talking point crap; yes, we should all be providing fertile, government-approved breeding grounds for a whole slew of backwards ideas and bronze-age traditions which violate basic human rights and further serve to divide/alienate communities rather than cohere them.

Free all-you-can-eat deference for everyone and fuck the consequences I say!

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
yes of course people have a right to their own beliefs but but but your beliefs have a HUGE impact on the decisions you make. She would and will make decisions based on her belief system which right now does not fall in line with what our government is. We are maybe the only secular country in the world right now and it's a damned good thing we are. I think all too often people forget that the first amendment is not just freedom of religion it's freedom FROM religion. Religious interests should have no role in politics today.

I'm pretty sure many European countries are much more secular than we are. President Bush states that god helps him in his policy decisions. When your highest government official takes advice from an imaginary being, I'd be hesitant to call that government secular. The horrible truth is that compared to Europe, we're in a fucking theocracy.


The irony is that ON PAPER, the United States Constitution forbids government entanglement with religion, while the UK and Sweden have tax-supported official state churches of which most of the population are lapsed members, despite having a majority of nonbelievers. In practice US policy is much more influenced by religious fundamentalism.

Comparative religion tends to support atheism/agnosticism. The way to create fanatics is to teach only one religion.
The one class that can have the most benefit towards avoiding raising kids with Palin's worldview is to teach them comparative religion -- as many different kinds of religion as possible, and the different dogmas they have. Teach them about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Several varieties of Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant), ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion, Scientology, and all kinds of other BS that people have at times (or still do) believe, then they might think of a few things:

* These different religions make contradictory claims that cannot all be correct simultaneously
* How easy must it be for false prophets or rumors to fool people and start/modify a religion?
* If I had been born in a different sect, would I be just as convinced of the truth of that sect?

But for fuck's sake keep it out of the SCIENCE class -- it belongs in the Social Studies / History class.

I think it would be impossible to teach religion in the classroom without infringing on others beliefs

Infringing on their ability to brainwash their children is the whole point. Nobody has the right to brainwash their children by preventing them from being aware of alternatives.

Ideally, children should be informed about several other religions as soon as they're informed of their parents' religion.

shout-out to Drosophila melanogaster! woop woop!

The horrible truth is that compared to Europe, we're in a fucking theocracy.


Thats absolutely the truth. The US is, with the current government in power, barely more secular then many Muslim nations.

It's rather striking that this country was founded on religious freedom but we are the least secular 1st world country in the western world. The good thing is more and more people every day see crap like our supposed leaders saying stuff like 'fruit fly research is inconsequential', and become part of the secular movement in this country.

Biologist PZ Meyers

His name is PZ Myers.

And on the video, Jesus F. Christ, let SOMEONE talk, US television is so soundbite-based at this point that they need FOUR people on the same screen interrupting eachother? This is just ridiculous. But Hitchens still won though.

"...and you can vote against them if you so like."

"sure will"


LOL

I don't see Palin forcing her religion on anyone or promoting it as policy. I do see Fraudbama and Friends planning to surrender in Iraq and stealing from the rich to give to the less rich to buy votes.

/\Admiral Oversimplification - one of Captain Obvious' distant cousins

Read Hitch's article in Slate on it too. It's even better.

http://slate.com/id/2203120

You've officially gone full retard in my opinion. There is no point reading anything further from you.
To come here in defense of this unbelievable and, in fact dangerous, stupidity has thrown out whatever credibility you may have had as some republican voice of reason. A person's belief's obviously will affect their policy decisions.

If she believes that fruit fly research (which aids in the fight against autism) is frivolous, that's a problem. If she believes dinosaurs roamed the earth (alongside humans!) only a few thousand years ago that's a problem. If she isn't sure that global warming is caused by man, that's a problem.

If you don't think that the VP having zero understanding of basic science is a problem, then you have a problem.

I can't be bothered reading anymore of your crap.


>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't see Palin forcing her religion on anyone or promoting it as policy. I do see Fraudbama and Friends planning to surrender in Iraq and stealing from the rich to give to the less rich to buy votes.

Palin, if elected, WOULD force her beliefs on people by:

* Restricting abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

* "abstinence only" sex education (i.e. telling high school students almost nothing about sex except that they shouldn't have it until marriage, and prohibiting teachers from actually educating students about contraception, disease prevention, and relevant biology.) This piece of crap plan was first dreamed up in the heart of the bible belt and led to the bible belt having the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. These "family values" conservatives are implementing policies that are causing the opposite of the outcomes they desire.

* Supporting Bush's OFBCI, which puts my tax money into evangelical christian organizations (exclusively, excluding all other religions & moderate varieties of Christianity)

* Helping McCain appoint more conservative hacks like Alito to the Supreme Court, where they'll OK evisceration of the parts of the bill of rights that prohibit torture and unreasonable searches & seizures.

"She says that she's been saved in some tabernacle in Wasilla....how does she know she's been saved?...how does she know that?"

You know, I really enjoy Hitchens most of the times but sometimes he says things that loses the majority of the audience. Most people in the US are religious and being "saved" is an integral part of Christianity. So him criticizing that in itself really just pushes most people away. Criticize her on her anti-scientific views, her wanting faith brought into schools, and all the other idiotic ideas/views she holds, but you cannot simply slam someone for just having faith/being religious (especially in the US).

I agree in principle with his views, how does anyone know he/she is saved? Because your holy book says so? I just think there are MUCH more effective ways to take her apart.

Just to add to my previous post, Hitchens could even criticize her for the extreme nature of her faith, for example the witch doctor blessing her in church, her believing Alaska to be one of the refuge states during the "End Times" etc.
Unfortunately he doesn't do this and says she's a religious fanatic and the only reason he provide is because she believes she's been saved. This then opens the door the others in the debate slamming Hitchens for "atheistic extremism"... that old chestnut. Unfortunately, most of the audience probably then agrees with them, so debate lost in some sense for Hitchens.

qm man, it's sad to see you like this.

Like that rude, miserable alcoholic they trot out, liberalism is going nowhere and has no purpose anymore except to tear down the very institutions that make America great.

Even as a flawed human institution, religion has been a greater force for good than any government program has been or ever will be. Even as non-believers, if you don't see this even from a utilitarian viewpoint, you're not looking. (And if you think government research is ever going to surpass private enterprise research: HA).

Palin's personal beliefs, however ludicrous, will not have a direct impact on any legislation whatsoever. For now, we've got a commie-run Congress, and they control the money. You've got a hell of a lot more to worry about with Fraudbama attempting to recreate the same failed socialism of the 1920s and 1960s than Palinosaurs.

When I encounter diehard socialists/liberals of any age, I know they've never been seriously exposed to conservative ideas and principles except in sneering soundbites provided by the opposition.

Mayhap the prejudices presented to you of what you should oppose and what you should favor are half-complete.

>> ^quantumushroom:


Haha! QM, I upvoted your comment for HILARITY!

>> ^quantumushroom:
When I encounter diehard socialists/liberals of any age, I know they've never been seriously exposed to conservative ideas and principles except in sneering soundbites provided by the opposition.

The definition of conservatism necessitates freedom, pragmatism, small government, realism, and non interference in the lives of its citizens.

Not exactly what last 8 years were.

farhad i am confused now, i thought the... wait... which side is blue and which side is red? make it simple for me.

QM, independents (like myself) and moderate Republicans are voting for Obama because the GOP has chosen to become the party of ignorance and Creationism (Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh).

That's their choice, and my prediction is that if they stay with it, they're going to be condemned to the wilderness for a number of years the way the Tories were in Britain.

QM,
"And if you think government research is ever going to surpass private enterprise research: HA"

I guess we should have put out bids on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program... I'm sure that would have succeeded wildly... Also, I say this as an R&D engineer, private research is very good at developing technologies, but... Private research sucks at creating technologies, and it sucks at science, it always has, and I suspect it always will. The pay off in doing basic science research is so far down the road, and such a gamble that little or no private enterprise is willing to touch it.

Also, I used to be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I have read Adam Smith, and Thomas Malthus... But after I finished school, and entered the real world, I realized that it just doesn't work that well. If you look at economic history of the US, it is the times that we had liberal presidents that our economy grew the fastest, unemployment dropped the fastest, Carter was the one aberration.

The University of Nevada-Reno uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

In short, it looks like Keynes is spot on.

Ideologically, I like fiscal conservatism, but pragmatism demands liberalization of fiscal policy. I am a liberal now, because of pragmatism, something I think you would understand with your comments about how great religion has been for the world (a statement I disagree with, btw. Sure good things have been done in the name of religion, but I am not so sure it outweighs the bad.).

Don't tell me that liberals know nothing of conservative thought. I used to think it my self, but then I looked around and grew up, became a liberal.

Also, calling our congress communist shows a complete ignorance of the definition of the term communism. Same with your use of the term socialism. Palin, and W are much more socialist than Obama. Bush with the buying of banks, and Palin with the paying of every citizen of Alaska.

If Ron Paul were in this race, I would vote for him. Barring that, I will vote to slap down these brain-dead Republican Neo-Con Fundamentalists, and wake them up from their dreams of hegemony.

I'm also not afraid Obama will will turn this country into a socialist state. Even though he advocates some socialist-type programs, it's the neo-con fiscal policies that are forcing government control over important businesses like banks.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like that rude, miserable alcoholic they trot out, liberalism is going nowhere and has no purpose anymore except to tear down the very institutions that make America great.
Even as a flawed human institution, religion has been a greater force for good than any government program has been or ever will be. Even as non-believers, if you don't see this even from a utilitarian viewpoint, you're not looking. (And if you think government research is ever going to surpass private enterprise research: HA).
Palin's personal beliefs, however ludicrous, will not have a direct impact on any legislation whatsoever. For now, we've got a commie-run Congress, and they control the money. You've got a hell of a lot more to worry about with Fraudbama attempting to recreate the same failed socialism of the 1920s and 1960s than Palinosaurs.
When I encounter diehard socialists/liberals of any age, I know they've never been seriously exposed to conservative ideas and principles except in sneering soundbites provided by the opposition.
Mayhap the prejudices presented to you of what you should oppose and what you should favor are half-complete.


What "failed socialist policies of the 1920's and 1960's" are you imagining?
FDR was inaugurated in 1933. The New Deal started long after the Great Depression began, and it helped reduce unemployment from 25% to less than 10% through federal spending on public infrastructure. It was based on Keynesian theories of economics. The US never had full socialism, but we ought to emulate France, Canada, Sweden, and Norway.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by mauz15.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.