Readers, BABloggees, potential commenters: In the past couple of days I’ve had to lay the smackdown to some commenters. Now, I don’t mind the occasional handing of the head to someone who so desperately needs it, but my time is limited, and I cannot stamp FAIL on everyone’s forehead no matter how richly they deserve it.
Instead, I will point you to two things:
1) My commenting policy. It boils down to, "Don’t be a jerk." Hint: if you’re wondering whether you’re stepping over the line of my policy, you probably are.
2) More importantly, perhaps, is my statement on posts dealing with politics and religion. Face it: the next week or two I will not be posting less on politics. I’ll be posting more. A large fraction of the time McCain or Palin open their mouths, some antiscience nonsense spews forth (as opposed to what comes out all the time). When they do (or in the event that Obama and Biden do as well — but if you don’t understand that’s more likely on the R side than the D one, you might want to spend some quality time in my archives) I will call them out. If you don’t like it, then I hear the electrons are much tastier on other blogs. Give them a bite.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
i demand more blogs about tasty electrons
October 26th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Mmm… Electrons.
Sorry, Phil. I like the electrons here too much. You can never get rid of me! Mwahahahahahaha!
October 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Phil, I honestly believe at this point that people complain because they like to. Intellectually, they know it’s your blog, and you can say whatever the frak you feel like, but it gives some people a sense of pride to self-righteously complain about how you’re an astronomer and should stick to astronomy, rather than complain about how the politicians are doing their best to completely frak up science education.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
BOOyeah, Phil!!!
October 26th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
mm,,, smackdown electrons …
October 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hey, I just heard the US is having an election soon. How’s it going?
October 26th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I completely support you BA the only thing is I wish those darn american elections were a lot shorter.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
@Davidlpf:
The run for 2012 starts November 5th.
The last time I bit electrons, it was a most shocking experience.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Yay, I get to be the first to say:
BA WIN!!!
October 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Also, it’s one thing to disagree with a post on the blog, BUT, it is another thing to cross the line into rudeness and name calling and dissing of character. I think most regular posters can disagree in a civil manner, and still enjoy Phil’s writings, whether it’s on science, politics or religion.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I cannot stamp FAIL on everyone’s forehead
As long as I keep getting my rump-stamps!
October 26th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Phil, I can’t tell you how glad I am that Discover gives you a free reign to write about controversial topics without worrying about the effect it may have on sales or advertising. And it’s refreshing that you tell people they’re free to take their readership elsewhere if they have a problem with your writing – a mark of dedication and confidence.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I have so much info about electrons, protons, and neutrons floating around in my head from reading Death ft Skies that I might explode. So I think I’ll hang with the electrons I’m familiar with on this blog.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Maybe I’ve said it before (Don’t get any older than you are right now) but if so, I’ll say it again:
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, at least one of them isn’t thinking.
BTW, caught your gig on Skeptics Guide to the Universe. And I’m loving the book.
October 26th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
As long as your electrons keep tasting like gravy, I’m sticking around Phil
October 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
IVAN3MAN, please, I’d prefer not to have bad words here, even if they are missing vowels. Thanks.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
October 26th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Phil Plait, what about your use of the word “fraking”, then?
October 26th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I’m glad BA is not backing down from his protracters. These people don’t understand how politics actually effect science. And can be used to stifle science if not abuse. Perhaps I’m the only one who understands that Phil is not promoting and/or endorsing any political party and/or agenda. I know that’s difficult to understand in a country with such a bipola political mechanic. But merely he is pointing voters to the less of two evils when it comes to science. And the only biast and agenda he has is all to do with science…
…so please allow him to continue to educate us.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I’m pretty sure made up profanity from tv shows don’t count http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Frak
October 26th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Sorry, that should be “doesn’t count”. It’s 12:30 AM so I’m a bit bleary eyed.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Frack is a euphemism. It doesn’t really mean anything – except in Swedish. It is just the same as saying something like, “this bleeping blog wastes too much of my time”. Bleep isn’t a bad word either. All the other old anglo-saxon words have roots (root is funny in Australia!) that mean something. They aren’t neutral or euphemistic. Personally I have no problems with any language but Phils blog n’all…
October 26th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Geez, and I missed the whole thing.
I was busy. Bought Fable 2 *and* Dead Space.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
And a really big wOOt!!!1111!!
As of exactly 4PM Eastern Australian Daylight Savings time, a few minutes ago, a copy of “Death From The Skies” was placed into my hands by the postie. It is still warm. I’d like to think that is hot off the presses but I think it had something to do with sitting in the posties hot van. It is warm today in Sydney.
So that was around 13 days to get here from Amazon. Not too bad, they didn’t swim it across after all. Must’ve rowed.
It looked bigger on the internet too.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I completely agree with the “It’s my blog and I’ll post what I want to” mentality. But come on. When you post about politics, you’re asking for it. If you honestly think things aren’t gonna get out of hand when you post some of the things you have (outside of your complaints about their views on science), and that people are actually going to practice restraint and stick to quality debate… well, I don’t know what to tell you.
I’m not your biggest fan. I only visit this site anymore to check any news that may fall through the cracks elsewhere. And it’s not because of the political posts, or the posts of pure opinion rather than scientific news. That’s what bloggers do- whatever they want. It’s yours. Fine. But I see far too many childish things that border on comedic, childlike “look at me everyone, aint I smart” antics to bother coming back for anything but the facts. But that’s just my opinion, which you’re basically asking for anyway the moment you add a “comment” feature.
As far as standing up for science and free-thinking, I’m all for that. More power to you. I admire your promotion of science and logic and the work you do to further them. And you know probably 74 times more than I do about space stuff. Anyway, I agree that the comments should be kept civil, but I’m not sure how else dedicating another post to it will come across to those certain people other than “flexing your internet-tough-guy muscles” and the tired “if you don’t like what I have to say then go somewhere else” routine. Not to say it won’t help keep the peace; I hope it does. But I’ve seen worse… a lot worse. Even at its worst this blog is still one of the most civil I’ve seen on the internets.
October 26th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I don’t even consider speaking out against our canditates’ potential for making decisions based on their superstitious beliefs to be political; it reeks of pure pragmatism.
Of course, most with scientific or critical thinking backgrounds tend to prefer the pragmatic over the dogmatic. I guess we will have to live with BA’s unchecked pragmatism in order to continue enjoying his blog; those who feel longing for dogma complicit with their non-evidence-based worldview may need have to supplement with a blog of dogmatic content from a purveyor of their preferred truthiness (thanks Mr Colbert).
One other note; I have never noticed BA mentioning anything about any politician with the exception of their stated views, policies, and actions re: science or the refutation thereof. How could this even be considered remotely inappropriate for the science/skeptic focus of this blog?
October 26th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Commenting smackdown — Farmer style (edited version)
Two farmers were discussing politics, and the first one says: “I believe in a share and share alike policy. One where we are all equal.”
“Well”, replied the other farmer, “I’m not sure about that. What you mean is that if you had two horses, you’d give me one?”
“Of course”, said the first farmer.
The second farmer continued: “And if you had two cars, you’d give me one of them, too?”
“Absolutely”, said the first farmer.
“So”, says the second farmer, “if you had two pigs, then you’d give me one of them?”
“Hey, now hang on a minute, you bastard”, said the first farmer, “you know that I’ve got two goddamn pigs!”
October 27th, 2008 at 12:08 am
@Ivan whatever… meh. It’s late, I’ve had a few pints, but the farmer joke is well, not even clever (which whether right or left , I could enjoy). It lames out in the punchline. It’s like a weak anti-socialist bit, which BTW doesn’t really resonate with an international readership.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
@ baryogenesis
It’s the best that I can do on a Monday morning!
October 27th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Phil, your last sentence was almost perfect, aside from one correction. The correct wording should have been Give them a byte.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I’ll be short:
When it comes to electrons, conduct yourself and you’ll have a certain magnetism that will be attractive. I know some folks want an outlet and get a real charge offering resistance to the commenting policy. However, there is potential for something shocking.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:05 am
To be Franck electrons Bohr me. It Mosely Hertz me to think about them and it makes me feel Pauli. Rutherford a creek in flood.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Phil, I think you misunderstand. Republicans want all forms of dissent SILENCED. Thanks to Reagan deregulating the broadcast industry they and they global corporations, literally and figuratively, have a hammerlock on most of the major media outlets. If they can find a way to do the same thing to the internet, they surely will.
Republicans (neocons) wanting “smaller government” is one of the most laughable and patently false notions ever foisted upon the American public. They want control. Nothing else matters to them.
Keep up the good work. We need voices of dissent to make democracy work.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I was going to be a “funny man” and comment on electrons… but several commenters beat me to the punch, so I am left without a witty response! :/
I see no reason to argue about politics in a science blog, unless the politics relate to science… and so far as I can tell, the statements in your politic related blogs do. Not everyone is necessarily required to agree with your view and interpretation of the politics involved, butI happen to find your logic and reasoning valid (in the political based topics I’ve encountered onyour blog) and you tend to point out the fundamental flaws associated with the “political whatever” that you happen to blog about.
My suggestion is (easier said than done, believe me) to not take it too personally when someone attacks you or your statements… the true thinkers are capable of deciding for themselves what truths and/or opinions they read are actually truths and are actually opinions. Those who are not so rounded in free-thought, tend to say what they have been conditioned to, and attack you not because of you, or your ideas, but because your ideas do not fit the propaganda that they have accepted as their own version of reality.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Daffy, I don’t agree with Phil all the time either, but one thing I do appreciate is how he is respectful to those he disagrees with, even as he’s calling them out on something. The comments too, for the most part, tend to avoid sweeping generalizations and blatant misrepresentations of opposing groups. But then I read a comment like yours. I don’t know what else to say except that I feel sad for anyone who has such a paranoid view of the world. People are just people, and most of them actually want what’s best, even if we can’t agree on what that should be. The whole “us vs. them” mentality only works in the favor of the few manipulators you seem so afraid of, which is why I have given up on any sort of affiliation to a label.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Let me add my voice to the “keep up the good work” chorus.
For the record, I expect the anti-scientific elements of the Left to grow in volume and nastiness during the next several years. Lately, attention has been drawn to the troubling possibility that neuroscience denial is the next creationism; it’s not as big as evolution denial just yet, because it’s a little out of the public eye and hasn’t provoked an emotional engagement. But we’re only going to learn more about the brain, and new knowledge will bring new technologies and novel medicines. (Every field of inquiry challenges mystical dogma, but the scientific study of who we are has a special place, because there’s nothing we love so much as ourselves.) We’ll be able to modify our minds like never before, and as the issue grows in visibility, schoolbooks will include more about cognitive science — and then we’ll be back in Dover.
The antirational contingent of the political Left is already lousy with Choprawoo: quantum, universal, holistic, harmonic, morphogenetic, homeopathic consciousness is all the rage. Evolution is the working-out of great Forces and Energies culminating in the glory that is New Age Awareness, and decent folk are “spiritual but not religious”. I fear the Discovery Institute will have a ready-made audience for their balderdash, once neuroscience denial comes out of the wings into the limelight. And this time, we won’t have the Lemon test to save us.
But all that is in the future. After the election, we can worry about warning signs of bad craziness on the horizon.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Actually I like the variety. I think it is a good way to pull in a diverse crowd and granted…I dont always agree…but thats what makes it fun! Thank you Phil.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Let me respond here as the person who was supposedly “smacked down.”
Phil, you took the sexist reporting of her warddrobe and tried to use it as a reason she shouldn’t be vice president. It’s sexist plain and simple. If you don’t understand that, perhaps you should go ask some women who are currently working in corporate America who are held to a different standard of appearance than men. Ask them if they could get away with the same attitude towards appearance as men.
Secondly, I didn’t see you dinging Obama on his $140,000 Greek columns or god knows what he is spending on his wardrobe.
To answer your question about Edwards, yes it was. It was their sad attempt to feminize John Edwards. Rush Limbaugh called him the “Breck Girl”. If you weren’t aware of this fact before, I suggest you do some more reading about sexism.
Next, 2007 the Palins made 167k between the two of then, 153K the year before. Are they necessarily middle class? Maybe not, but they are a lot closer than any of the other four. There are lots of families who make that much money and probably don’t consider themselves rich, just two people working hard. It should be pointed out that Palin isn’t running the campaign, McCain and the Republicans are, it’s not her decision necessarily to pay for the wardrobe.
Lastly, yeah “Clueless White Male” magazine, because as a group, you’ve known so little cultural bias against you or discrimination, you and I don’t see the same world gender. When you’ve been called a n**ger before or told, “sweetie, why don’t you smile more around the office, ” then maybe, just maybe, you’ll have the standing to tell me what is sexist or not. Until then, take the skeptical approach, and maybe do your research.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Daffy,
It is the free market that is determining what talk radio shows are being aired. The liberals have tried to start their own radio network and did not get enough advertising dollars to sustain it. The TV and print media is definately NOT dominated by conservative ideas. I am against ANY attempt to stifle our First Amendment rights. The government should have no place in determining what is aired on TV, radio, print, internet, etc.
Dan
October 27th, 2008 at 6:03 am
Way to go, Phil! There’s a german saying: “Getroffene Hunde bellen” – so those who want you to shut up about politics just prove your point.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:09 am
STOP POSTING ON POLITICS! Okay, I know this is your blog, and I know there’s an election coming up, and I know that it could have a big effect on science, but I don’t care! STOP POSTING ON POLITICS!
(Yeah, I’m just kidding)
October 27th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Look, this is bloody ridiculous. Why is it any time someone points out the hypocrisy of the right wing’s hairy conniption over Edwards getting a $400 haircut, then their defense of Palin’s $4000 makeup and hair, and $135,000 shopping sprees at two exclusive and incredibly expensive clothing stores, the first line of attack is “that’s so sexist to talk about Palin spending twice the average household income on clothing in two months”? What the hell is sexist about pointing out that someone is running on a platform of populism, of being “Joe Sixpack”, while spending an absurd amount of money on unnecessary appearance improvement? What is sexist about this? Please, someone tell me!
October 27th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Another thing that bothers me is that sneering, mocking tone with which Republicans smear Obama’s attempt to invoke the image of the Lincoln Memorial on MLK’s 45th “I Have a Dream” anniversary. Yes, they’re Greek columns. Just like the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, they probably cost a lot to put together. So did the Republican National Convention — $150 million, approximately, which by the way is three times what the DNC shelled out for their own convention.
October 27th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Phil,
Just keep doing what you’re doing. And if you’re getting trolls, well, it just means you’re getting readers.
I don’t always agree with your politics and I try to not to sound snarky on your blog (tone does get lost sometimes), but you’re always honest, open, and willing to look at the evidence.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Hi Phil
Great blog, thanks for it. Can i suggest though, tag your politics and religion as such, so I can apply the required filters this side
Based internationally we’re not too obsessed about what falls out of the mouthes of US politicians
KUTGW!
October 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Dan and Wayne,
In a situation where 2 corporations own virtually ALL of the broadcast stations in this country, talking about free market is absurd. When Republicans want to legislate our private lives, it is ridiculous to talk about them wanting smaller government. When their spending policies have bankrupted the nation it is insane to call them the party of fiscal responsibility.
It is not paranoia to notice that corporate lobbyists are having WAY too much influence and that nobody is doing anything about it. Republicans want to silence dissent and Democrats are spineless weasels…but ALL of them are beholden to the corporate lobbyists.
If it makes you feel any better, I will be sitting out this election in protest for that very reason.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Phil,
Okay, I admit it. I am a conservative. Although I’m registered as an Independent, I lean to the conservative side, which, in this day and age, means Republican.
That also means I don’t agree with your politics. However, I find that, when you do post one of your rants (yes, I like the word…heck, this message probably constitutes a rant), I read it with gusto! Not only that, I read each and every comment. I dunno, I guess I just like to see the water in the bucket splashed around a bit. Doesn’t do much to change the bucket, though.
A while back I mentioned in one of your political blog comment areas that I thought your making political comments would hurt your scientific image, that it would hurt your chances of becoming the next Carl Sagan (which I think you have the potential to become). I have rethought this, and now believe that I was wrong! Why? Well, I did some research. Carl was a true scientist, which means he (as well as you) had a passion for all things natural. He was speaking out against environmental pollution before it was fashionable.
And look at Einstein. His pacifism was a famouse part of his persona, and still the world loved him.
So, what I’m saying here is that you should keep up your commentary on any subject about which you feel passionate. If it’s genuine (and indeed I believe it is), it will become part of *your* persona, and allow everyone to see more of the real Phil Plait.
And that would be a good thing.
Regards, Mikel
October 27th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Phil I think you are great. I love your style and love of science. That’s why I’m here, every day hoping to take something good away for the day and share it with others.
Conservative folks like looking up too! I have had my faith challenged about God and how everything got where it is, just because I choose to look into a telescope and see for myself what is out there that cannot be seen with the naked eye. How can we be the only living things around when thousands of Galaxies can be seen!?
Liberal folks like looking up too I’m sure. McCain made a BAD stab about the OVERHEAD PROJECTOR thing. He should have suggested that instead of the whole country paying for it ( which the amount would be a drop in the bucket) that it be funded by a charity drive or donations @ the door.
I will share the skies freely through my little ETX 125 anytime, just don’t tax me for doing it. I harm no photons while I look %^)
Keep it up but be gentle Phil, I a conservative respect you and your right to have your say and us to say back.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Jane,
You don’t know Phil and your accusations of sexism in his character are based on that lack of knowledge. Perhaps you ought to do YOUR homework and research too before flinging that accusation where it isn’t warranted.
The reporting on the wardrobe issues serve to show how shallow and out of touch the McCain/Palin campaign is with most people in this country. It’s not the only indicator of such elitism, but it’s a very visible one. I suggest you focus on that indicator before you descend into further shrill moral scolding.
You ARE correct that the GOP have used the issue of haircuts and such to label Democrats the same way, but it always got WAY more traction than the issue of GOPers and their facelifts and 10,000 suits and such. Now that the amount of money spent to primp an otherwise unqualified and uneducated Republican candidate is so outrageous, the issue of GOP spending and elitism is finally getting some traction. And, in order to deflect criticism, they’re yelling sexism. Heck, the GOP is pretty much blaming everybody for their own fall from grace, a far cry from the “cult of responsibility” they used to yell about.
Pretty rich coming from a party that actively seeks to keep women from achieving full, equal status. But, YOU bought their talking point, so it must be working for some people who don’t dig any further than the latest GOP whine.
It’s not a big leap to go from criticizing the spending of such obscene amounts of money on clothes and lipstick and spray-on tans (the last two at a cost of $20,000 or more per month) to looking at what else the candidates “stand for”.. . and their science comments are fair game. Their stance on science and their “let them eat cake” attitude and the spending on the wardrobe are part and parcel of a very cynical attitude that only GOPers seem to take.
Now, as for those “Greek columns” costing so much — please cite verifiable sources for that figure, and give us some verifiable figures on what Obama-Biden spend on their clothes. If you’re going to fling that charge, have the facts to back them up.
They’ve been reported in the press and online and the figures are nowhere near what you seem to think they are. But, I’m not going to do your homework for you — search out reputable sources (fauxnews doesn’t count) and do get back to us with your research, Jane.
Now, back to the original topic — it’s Phil’s blog and he gets to talk about science and politics as he sees fit. He’s not the only science blogger to get fragged from the pearl-clutching contingent for daring to talk about politics as it relates to science. I’ve blogged about these unwarranted criticisms, too, and had more than a few emails about “how dare you talk about politics on a science blog!” and such.
Here’s a clue: Scientists (and science writers) are citizens, too, and we do have a right to talk about the issues of the day, especially as it relates to the work scientists do. Those who think otherwise, as Phil points out, are welcome to byte other electrons in other realities.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:38 am
@Davidlpf: Ya, we all do. Every election get’s longer and longer. The fanatics get louder and louder….
I’ll be glad when this is over so they quit calling my house. I’ve already had to belittle several political telemarketers to get a real job.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
you took the sexist reporting of her warddrobe
Reporting on illegal use of campaign funds is “sexist”? How strange! I suppose wanting her to do press conferences and display a modicum of competence is also sexist.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:49 am
We’ve had our entire Canadian federal election and campaign last month. Americans sure should take example on us. We’re not wasting time and ressources on a simple question up here.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I, for one, enjoy Phil’s political posts because they initiate such fervent discussion. I happen to be left as well, so I have the pleasure of agreeing with his posts, but having the opportunity to read what other intelligent people from a broad range of political backgrounds have to say is a wonderful thing. Most places on the internet are so incredibly full of STUPID that it’s very difficult to conduct reasonable debates, or even read!
After the election, I’m sure the blog’s political discussions will wane and there will be more astronomy posts again, which is also wonderful!
October 27th, 2008 at 7:56 am
ccpetersen says: “BOOyeah, Phil!!!”
BOOyeah? Seriously what on Earth do you mean by that? Is it good or bad or what exactly?
October 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am
@ ioresult
Which “simple” question would that be? And what “simple” solution do you propose?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Hahaha, I don’t know if you can “be left” in English or not. I meant “lean left”!
You can definitely “be right” … but in my opinion “being left” is “right”, eh?
…
..
.
*explodes*
October 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
TheWalruss noted :
“Most places on the internet are so incredibly full of STUPID that it’s very difficult to conduct reasonable debates, or even read!”
That’s NOT just true for the internet I’m afraid Walruss but is the case nearly everywhere.
We need to cherish the few exceptions – of which this is one.
—–
PS. Hope the whole thread isn’t going to be in italics now. My apology if so. Great blog Dr Phil Plait but could we please have an editing or preview capability and is there any chance of giving us a better way to produce bold, italics etc .. here? The html brackets coding method is very easy to mess up. Just my dimes’ worth of some positive suggestions for making a good blog even better.
PPS Write on all the politics you like – no complaints from me.
But I do like the astronomy side as well too and that’s what a lot of people mainly come here to read. It is, of course, quite possible to just skim over and not take part in threads that doen’t interest you people – if you don’t like politics just read the astronomy and skip the political topics.
Not too hard surely?
October 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am
give us some verifiable figures on what Obama-Biden spend on their clothes
From a legal point of view, it doesn’t matter, as long as they’re paying for their clothes out of their own pockets. FECA doesn’t allow campaign funds to be used to buy clothing, period.
Now, from a populist point of view, it does matter. Personally, I think spending more than a couple hundred dollars on *any* given outfit is nuts, for a man or a woman. There’s no difference between a $300 suit and a $1000 that I can see. But I admit, I’m not exactly a clothing connoisseur. *glances at his screen name*
October 27th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I wouldn’t care that much if it was about real political issues. When it comes down to it talking about a 150,000 wardrobe expenditure is meaningless fluff.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Jane Renson said :
“Lastly, yeah “Clueless White Male” magazine, because as a group, you’ve known so little cultural bias against you or discrimination, you and I don’t see the same world gender. When you’ve been called a n**ger before or told, “sweetie, why don’t you smile more around the office, ” then maybe, just maybe, you’ll have the standing to tell me what is sexist or not. Until then, take the skeptical approach, and maybe do your research.”
Er ..How? Are you suggesting the BA dyes his skin black and passes himself off as an African-American or, worse, starts cross-dressing and pretending to be a “Lay-Dee” …!!!???
Coz frankly that puts images in my head that I really didn’t want there!
Post what ya bleepin’ like BA, duzzent bother me.
Swear words incidentally arefine too, I mean really who above theage of oh about two hasn’t heard the eff word and worse ..
Soem people live to be offended, its their one joy in life.
I try to oblige ‘em!
October 27th, 2008 at 8:34 am
@ stopgap
And you really think that this issue is “what it comes down to”? That THIS issue is, in and of itself, the ONLY thing to glom on to… and that this issue isn’t just one example, albeit a glaring example, of a larger trend?
Come on… stop over-simplifying. If the $150,000 on clothes were the ONLY issue, you’re right… it would be, by itself, fluff… although I’d argue whether that much needless waste on either side is “meaningless”. Just because you dismiss an issue as meaningless doesn’t mean it is.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:39 am
@ Naked Bunny with a Whip for Sayin’ :
“Now, from a populist point of view, it does matter. Personally, I think spending more than a couple hundred dollars on *any* given outfit is nuts, for a man or a woman. There’s no difference between a $300 suit and a $1000 that I can see. But I admit, I’m not exactly a clothing connoisseur. *glances at his screen name*”
His?! Here I was thinking you were a bunny of the Miss October, “pin-up” variety! ;-O
BTW. On clothing. I agree with U.
Bein’ serious for once, it says something about priorities and their *thinking* on what they think voters *think* matters.
If someone insults my IQ I tend not to wanta vote for them.
Clothing makes no diference to the underlying nature or character or political ideas. It doesn’t change whose policies are better.
Spending shedloads of $ to …well, can I say “put lipstick on a pig” – & the pig will still roll in filth and produces pig dung and then tasty ham when its cooked at last!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Smack ‘em as you see ‘em, Phil. But I will agree with previous comments that certain discussions will raise more ire than others. “There are two things you don’t discuss in polite company”, right? I think it applies to blogs, too.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hi, Phil! As I said at D*C, it’s your blog, and I have great respect for a man who earns a doctorate in a “hard” science, as you have.
What I wish for, and am not even close to getting, is that people, individually and severally, actually ask themselves, “Is that even close to right?” when something is reported in the news.
Hey, crowd, I know you won’t buy a UFO story outright no matter what network is pushing it – but you sure go off on everything about the campaigns as if they were… heh. Gospel.
You are all supposed to be skeptics. Apparently not.
Pharyngula’s worse. Apparently biology fans are even more fond of ad hominem and other smears.
Short story: look it up! At least go to Snopes!
October 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
@ Radwaste –
Sigh… yet another generalized ad-hom from one who insists he knows the motives and level of “factual knowledge” of many, if not all, of the posters here.
Allow me to just speak for myself and say you’re full of crap.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
It’s not that Phil or anyone else here has a political viewpoint. I just think that there is a vast disconnect between Phil’s espousal of rational thinking and his political rants. You don’t exactly paint yourself as a rational political thinker when you rely on Crooks and Liars and MSNBC for your talking points.
Yes–be concerned about science funding, and critical thinking (or the lack thereof), or whatever. If you are going to point it out on one side, though, point it out everywhere (believe me it’s there on both sides). What often comes out here is less a display of well-reasoned, well-founded arguments and more of an emotional, factually inaccurate rant.
I’ve read Randi for years, yet I don’t think i was ever made aware of his political leanings as i am here.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am
@Joker
His?! Here I was thinking you were a bunny of the Miss October, “pin-up” variety! ;-O
You’ve obviously never “accidently” clicked on Naked Bunny with a Whip’s name out of curiosity. I’m not trying it again, but if a recall correctly, it leads to some weird Donnie Darko nightmare.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I think the Astronomer doth protest too much.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
@ David D.
Absurd. Admit it, you’d never make that statement if his political viewpoints agreed with yours.
Which would be a valid point if those were his only sources. Read more. Generalize less.
I’m pretty sure Phil has in fact pointed out issues with BOTH candidates where their science policies and statements are concerned. But let’s not pretend for a minute that you’re not aware how much the scale is tipped concerning this issue, David.
Strong statement. Care to point out one of those “factually inaccurate rants”, for clarification?
Good for Randi. This isn’t his blog.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:07 am
The left-wing can get anti-science in terms of its views on certain pharmaceuticals, whereas the right-wring can get anti-science in terms of evolution/stem cell.
In terms of what is more frightening I would say the right-wing. That is not to say all Republicans are anti-science, just the deep wings. Personally, out of my candidates I require and ask for the following:
Stem cell federal funding.
Environmental research/protection
Protection for evolution within publically funded schools.
Internet neutrality (in this case, I kinda like the status quo).
Improvements to science in schools and the push to regain American edge in innovation/indstury.
Improvements to the infrastructure to relate to a ‘green’ economy and industry.
Revitalizing the space program with intent for a manned mission to Mars within our lifetime.
Those are just my desires for the scientific/domestic programs for the next POTUS.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
@CE–
I and others have pointed out some of the inaccuracies regarding, for example, Palin and book banning and her creationist beliefs. See previous posts.
If you are saying that I would feel more comfortable with the political posts if my and Phil’s views coincided, that’s pretty much a no-brainer. As absurd as you may think it is, I can honestly say that political opinions, at least to me, stand out like a sore thumb in science writing, and no matter what side they are from, they (again for me at least) detract from the overall rational tone of the discussion. That doesn’t really seem absurd to me.
As far as sources, would you feel better if I had said “often rely on Crooks and Liars and MSNBC for your talking points”?
And you are right–this is Phil’s blog, not Randi’s. So?
October 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am
CE said: Care to point out one of those “factually inaccurate rants”, for clarification?
Google “killing us all bush astronomy” (without the quotes). It’s a classic. I’m assuming I still can’t post links. Here’s a snip:
Sure, I’m a scientist, and I make it known when I think science is under attack. But this White House, this Administration, George Bush, is destroying far more than just science. He’s killing all of us, and it really seems to me that he cares far more about who gave him money and who can help him consolidate his power as unitary executive than who can do a good job.
Note: I said it at 11:31am on August 23rd 2007 in response to this post and repeat it quickly here: I’m not a big fan of this administration. I agreed with most of the points that Phil brought up in the post, but hyperbole doesn’t help.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:40 am
@ Tom Hill
The statement you refer to may be hyperbole, in your opinion… but I’m not sure where I see you point out what, in that statement, is factually incorrect.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I apologize for telling whoever I told to shut up to shut up. I will try and more rigidly follow the comment policy from now on.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:49 am
George Bush is not killing all of us. If someone states that he is, that statement is factually incorrect.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I take it, until proven otherwise, that snarky comments from those whose views on manned space flight are 180 degrees out of phase with Dr. Plaits’ are not unwelcome.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Naked Bunny with a whip: I think you get the prize for one of the best screen names I’ve seen this year. Then again, I also think that a blog I ran across a while back called “Nanny Goats in Panties” is a hoot…
October 27th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@Tom Hill
I agree. Figurative language is a bad thing. Stick to statements that are firmly grounded in reality! Metaphor, simile, oxymoron, hyperbole, all of these things must go! They are the mark of a man poor in spirit and weak of mind, to stray away from reality for even a moment.
Why, where would we be if we allowed people who write often to use statements that make no logical sense on their surface, but hold underlying truth? We would get hacks! All of them, hacks! Terrible people who use dramatic overstatement, or understatement.
You’re a good man. Keep up the fight against figurative language, my friend, for you are one of the few and proud pedants who is keeping this great nation, nay, all of Western civilization, from crumbling. If we fall to figurative language, that’s a slippery slope that leads to the devil’s art of poetry and literary fiction.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Jane, I find irony in your comment to Phil. You claim his criticism of Sarah Palin is sexist. But to do that dismisses the content of his criticism as meaningless and perhaps not a true reflection of his motivation; which instead you posit as merely being a function of his mysogyny. Maybe he does have a reasoned point about the spending on her wardrobe that has nothing to do with disdain toward women. Instead, dismissing his point by calling him sexist is tantamount to hearing a woman complain and claiming “she must be on the rag.” That dismisses the woman’s complaint as meaningless and further hypothesizes the “real” reason for her complaint is some other motivation (e.g. hormones). In both cases, you and the proverbial sexist claim that it couldn’t possibly a meritorious argument, but it is something else. Do you see the irony? Do you see yourself practicing the very thing you despise?
In case you don’t see the merit in Phil’s and others’ criticism of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe, let me spell it out in my own words:
No matter the source of funding, it stikes people like me, who paid less for my entire HOUSE than Sarah Palin and the RNC spent on her clothes and makeup for the presidential run, that that was a GROSS overexpenditure. Do you think that $150,000 is a quite ordinary amount of money to spend on clothing and that those of us who are horrified are only critical because we don’t like women? I want to see you write that $150,000 in clothing and makeup is perfectly normal under the circumstances and WE ALL KNOW IT and are only just being sexist.
I can assure you, if any of the three other people on the ticket spent that kind of money on clothes, I would be just as critical and I bet Phil would be too. Even if they spent half of that, it would strike me as a horrible waste. It is a seemingly ridiculous amount of money for a person to spend on clothing and makeup, even if one accounts for womens’ clothing being more expensive. Do you not see merit in this argument at all?
Lest you think that shopping at Neiman, Saks, Chanel etc. are absolutely necessary for her to succeed, I would argue that she could have purchased clothing that looked just as nice from less expensive sources.
All of this extravagance is from the party that claims fiscal responsibility and derides elitism? This is a grevious example of fiscal indulgence and elitism. Don’t you see that? When a group says they do one thing and they do another, generically speaking, that makes the news. When a priest does unpreistly things, that makes the news. You don’t have to be anti-priest to report it or criticise it. When a doctor purposely harms a patient, that makes news. Same idea.
Sexist schmexist. It is Marie Antoinette all over again. We know how well the reaction went there.
Let them eat cake…
October 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I lean to the conservative side, which, in this day and age, means Republican.
Barry Goldwater would slap you in the face for that comment.
The current GOP has *nothing* to do with the classical conservative movement of the 1960s/1970s. The whole thing was hijacked by religious loons while the other party was hijacked by statist loons. Now we have nothing in the middle where things actually manage to function once in a while. The GOP could have discarded the moralistic (bleep) and captured the middle, and relegated the statists to the scrapheap, but, no, they just gots to have their Jeezus involved in everything. Losers.
I hate both parties these days, and will not enjoy having my retirement raped bloody by the Dems over the next few years because I chose to lead a responsible life, but the GOP needs to go down in spectacular exploding flames next week, and maybe the vestiges of the party’s moderate wing can rise up and wrest control from the Jesus freaks. The mentally challenged believers of witchcraft and sky buddies can go and start the Republic Of Gilead somewhere for all I care.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Dave: Jane, I find irony in your comment to Phil. You claim his criticism of Sarah Palin is sexist.
It’s just a game ideologues play. Just watch. Every criticism of President Obama will be shouted down as racist.
Andre: that’s a slippery slope that leads to the devil’s art of poetry and literary fiction.
Now *that’s* sarcasm!
(QD tips hat)
October 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
@Andre Vienne
Oh, how I wish I could write that well. Everyone else probably does too.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Both parties are identical”, “both parties are corporatist”, “both parties are equally evil” implying that everyone in either party is equally corrupt, are all Karl Rove talking points dating back to the 2000 and 2004 elections and originally designed to disillusion the college age voters, who tend to vote Democratic. The scheme is designed to broadly discourage and suppress Democratic voting.
When someone says something like “Obama is just as bad as McCain” they’re actually implying that you not vote, or write in a third party candidate so as to suppress a potential Obama vote and eliminate missing potential votes which aid McCain. This is among the more subtle forms of Republican voter suppression, but thanks in part to Obama’s clearer policies and obvious leadership appeal, this particular shilling for Bush and now McCain isn’t working this time.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Just a quick note, the $150,000 clothes shopping spree at Saks Fifth Avenue and Niemann Marcus outfitted not just Gov. Palin, but her whole family, including designer wear for Trig.
I would agree that it’s not sexist to criticize, particularly when such actions are coming from the platform that is against wasteful government spending. Hypocrisy? Yes.
As far as the Greek columns go, rather than comparing them to Palin’s wardrobe, compare the cost of the Greek column set to the cost of the RNC set. A more meaningful comparison, I’d say.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I totally disagree that you have to be female to have an opinion on sexism. As a woman in a traditionally male-dominated career, I guess I qualify to speak up. Fine, I will. Sayeth Law Mom, “Criticism of the wardrobe is warranted.”
I think spending over $2,000 a day on clothes, hair and makeup is (1) financially irresponsible, (2) a bad omen regarding future decisions requiring fiscal responsibility, (3) insulting to the major corporations, oops, hard-working Americans who donated to the campaign, (4) arrogant, conceited, shallow, etc., (5) an example of how out of out touch the campaign is with the regular Joes they are always going on about, (6) overestimates the voters interest in haute couture, and (7) unncessary for this already pretty woman.
By the way, the best way to fight sexism is to do whatever the heck you want. Be a scientist, be a lawyer, be a truck driver, then be patient. Trust me, your daughters will have it better than you, just as you have it better than your mother. Also, stop calling everyone who disagrees with you sexist. It’s hard to get people to listen to you when they’re rolling their eyes.
Law Mom hath spoken.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Oh, and one more thing…
Isn’t it pretty obvious from the headline or at least the first few words of the post what it’s about? How hard is it to skip the posts that don’t interest you? Seriously, I don’t get why people would prefer the posts never even get written.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Phil
Why do you want to suppress my right to free speech? Why do you hate America?
I know this horse is mutilated. Pulverized, even, but I gotta say
Jane,
Phil’s comments were not sexist. He’s calling Palin on hypocrisy. It’s hypocritical to run on the platform that she represents small town America, the average Joe, blah, blah, blah and spend far more in excess of twice the annual income of the average Joe, on outfitting her family for the campaign trail.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
are all Karl Rove talking points dating back to the 2000
Of course that doesn’t make them wrong.
Both parties have drifted to their respective extremes leaving the middle unserviced. I’m sorry, but to deny that is to deny reality as much as a Young Earth Creationist.
Someone: Both parties have become extremist and corrupt.
You: Well, the EVIL Karl Rove said that, too!
C’mon, Chipster. Tell me *that’s* not propaganda as much as anything Darth Rove did.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
October 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Obama is LESS experienced than Palin and plans to redistribute the wealth.
You morons who vote for him will be paying more tax from 2010 (at least) onwards by which time this country will be a third world country that will have no MONEY FOR NASA!
ignore his wealth redistribution plan like morons.
obama idiots keep it up…see you in 2 yrs.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Well, Jane has already been slapped down in previous comments, and correctly I’ll add. But one more thing..
Jane, your claims of my being sexist are wrong. But you have confirmed my opinion that you are a racist. You have no idea of my history, and what I’ve done. To say I am clueless because I am white is not only racist, and not only ridiculous, but also an insult to people who really do have to deal with racists.
And now your FAIL is complete.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Well phil, i dont care if you are sexist- but I know you have no problem with someone putting up a sarah palin doll being hanged … But you have a big problem with an obama doll being hanged.
This is the evil of the mainstream media and the “anti-racists” like you.
The fact of the matter is Sarah Palin represents the middle class while Obama represents indocrinated idiots or rich people who have no problem with oppressing the working class to give undeserved handouts to criminals and trash of society.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Jane has already been “slapped down”? Really Phil and minions? “Slapped down”? Are we one step away from calling her “bi*ch slapped” or something worse? I side with your thread of commentary, your opinions and ideas, but I’m getting a little horrified at the tone. She has a point (which I don’t agree with- but my gosh, “slapped down”?! what the hell is wrong with you?).
Jane- on the behalf of Phil- this is normally a civil blog. I think that the election is causing people to go loco. Please come back. Dissenting opinion is welcome and appreciated (and normally not met with sexist stupidity like Phil has recently displayed0 he’s not normally like this, and he writes really interesting articles on space stuff).
October 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I haven’t been to this blog in a long while and this blog entry and its comments just reinforces my reasons for staying away.
I just need to say a few things and I’ll be on my way.
Phil,
For the longest time I thought this site was the greatest thing since sliced bread. I found this site while researching the Moon Hoax conspiracies and found the site to be a great tool to learn more about science. I have been an avid lover of science since I got my first microscope as a kid and that love still continues today.
I am a den leader for a cub scout pack which my son is a part of. I am always looking for good, informative and fun activities for the boys in my den and science always fits the bill. I get parents all the time saying how much their boys like the scouts and the things I have them do. Activities range from building rockets and learning how they work to gazing at the stars through a telescope. They absolutely love it. On more than on occasion, I have used your site as inspiration for the activities I plan.
Sadly, you site has turned into a political machine that I just can’t take anymore. If I wanted political commentary, I’ll go to the Huffington Post or Politico or any number of sites like them. I’m tired of having to sort through the crap to get to the good stuff. This site is way to divisive for my taste. I very much appreciate you sharing your passion and knowledge of science and I have truly learned a lot. I’ll be getting my science fix from other sites from now on. From sites that aren’t so politically charged.
Best wishes to you Phil.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
@Tony-
I completely agree with you. That was a nice post. Reasoned, substantial.
And it also didn’t include any hate, threats of violence, or vitriol (normal contents of some bloggers at Phil’s posts)
October 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
There are some here who feel that this blog has gotten more political (and I’m not just talking about the last week before the election).
is this a biased perception, or has anyone gone back through the archives and actually gotten some real numbers?
October 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
It’s Phil’s blog, he shouldn’t care a whit if the blog has gotten more political (or whatever his views are there). What he should care about is whether he is being a sexist (please see his previous posts)- his sandbox, do he plays in it.
October 27th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
“so” he plays in it- dang keypad!
October 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think I’m the only person who reads your blog “religiously” for the political commentary. I used to check the site out once a week for my astronomy fix. Currently I’m here every weekday looking for the latest on IDiocy and Politics.
On a happier note, I received my copy of DFTS! My 12 year old son snatched it from my hands right away and has been gleefully reading it all weekend. While I do love astronomy and all the sciences, I’m more interested in geology. My son however is a budding astronomer and loves space exploration almost as much as his Wii. It really is a close thing with the Wii.
October 27th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
“Allow me to just speak for myself and say you’re full of crap.”
Good example! Thanks a bunch!
October 27th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Quick, unofficial survey:
# of political posts
June 05 1
Oct 05 2
Jan 06 4
Feb 06 7
Mar 06 5
June 07 7
June 08 23
Just sayin’.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Observer said: “Well phil, i dont care if you are sexist- but I know you have no problem with someone putting up a sarah palin doll being hanged … But you have a big problem with an obama doll being hanged.”
Is this an analogy of some weird kind? Because where have I ever said that effigy-hanging is OK? What the heck are you talking about?
October 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
JUTU, calm yourself. “Slapped down” is an expression. I mean it be read as someone who is making silly arguments is shown why they are wrong in no uncertain terms. If it comes across as suggesting actual violence, then I suggest that is what you are inferring, not what I am implying. I would have used that phrase had she been a man, woman, or anyone else who said something I considered silly. I have seen others use this phrase in that way.
However, if someone finds that phrase offensive, than I offer my apology, and state clearly it is meant as an expression, and nothing else.
But still, people are arguing the wardrobe thing is sexist? How can you possibly argue that? It is not about her wardrobe per se, it’s about the RNC spending a fortune on her when she’s claiming she’s just another middle class hockey mom. That’s blatant hypocrisy.
Calling that sexist is like saying it’s racist to question anything about Obama. It’s ridiculous. And given that Jane called me racist for no reason whatsoever calls her judgment into serious question.
In fact, this brings up an interesting and potentially massively ironic point: isn’t the expenditure of $150,000 on clothes for her sexist in itself? Why do they feel she has to look so good? Is that much spent on McCain’;s clothes?
I stand by my reasoning. Pointing out the expenditure is not sexist.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
On October 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am Radwaste Says:
I looked in Snopes. I didn’t see anything about Mrs. Palin’s wardrobe (nor Obama’s Columns). What was it we were supposed to be looking up?
John B. Sandlin
October 27th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
On October 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am David D. Says:
David,
I don’t recall Phil talking about her book banning.
Regarding the Creationist bit. She might not be a full out and out Creationist, but she does support their agenda when she promotes teaching “both sides.” There isn’t a both sides in this case, and usually only a Creationist thinks otherwise – so the assumption seems reasonable. Her comments later were along the lines that she meant it should be something they can talk about if it comes up – not that she endorsed doing so otherwise. This is also the same line many Creationists take when cornered on the issue, knowing as they do how often it has failed in the courts. So, while certainly no smoking gun, it is still right along the Creationist party line. If you don’t believe me, read the Wedge Document.
John B. Sandlin
October 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
On October 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm observer Says:
For an observer, I believe you need more practice. Obama will leave 98% of us with the same level of taxation we have now. On the other hand, the last eight years of supposedly fiscal conservatism has snatched deep debt from the jaws of surplus. That’s right, eight years ago, we went into the current administration with a growing surplus. We are now so in-debt we will be decades digging out.
Was Bush the Elder a Socialist? From the reading I’ve done, Obama’s tax plan puts us roughly on par with the taxes we were paying in the early 1990′s when the first President Bush held office.
John B. Sandlin
October 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Phil- I am calm. Don’t be so dismissivley condescding with that literoical brush off. You are smarter than that. If you want to dismiss me please try something more appropriate.
“Slap down” in your eyes is an “expression” right? OK…
I kind of want to respond to many other of these “expressions” but I don’t have the stomach for it. I can’t denigrate women further. “She just deserved it….”, “she had it coming”…”,
In your response to me you are bringing up Palin’s wardrobe and your political talking points. FAIL! (to use your terminology). My post had absolutely nothing to do with politics. It had nothing to do with hypocripsy. It had nothing to do with sexism or any of the other “facts” you brought up (in your response). Read my post and please re-read your response (by the way, I’m voting for Obama, you made this a Dem Vs Rep thread out of thin air-and I have absolutely no idea why).
October 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
@David D re unofficial survey: so we have more political posts the closer we get to the election. What’s your point?
The only problem with the “political” posts is that they have attracted a trollish crowd and drive-by whingers – “I used to read but… blah blah blah”. With one or two rare exceptions those complaining about the political posts are only complaining because the posts are in disagreement with their political world view – their bias. Somehow I don’t think they would have a problem with a post about Obama’s links to the Chicago mob (I made that up btw).
@SLC “I take it, until proven otherwise, that snarky comments from those whose views on manned space flight are 180 degrees out of phase with Dr. Plaits’ are not unwelcome.”
SLC, I don’t have a problem with alternative viewpoints or arguments. I do get tired of the same snarky comments over and over though. We get that Bob Park and Weinberg don’t agree with manned space flight. Your comments on other topics show that you can discuss other topics reasonably, ie. with less snark. If not we can always “slap you down”…
@Andre Vienne, Win!!
October 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Jane,
Phil is a personal friend of mine and he is not sexist at all! If you don’t agree with what he says, fine, but don’t accuse him of being sexist. He’s pointing out the same hypocrisy that the New York Times and other news organizations have been pointing out. If Obama spent the same amount of money on his own wardrobe or on his wife’s, I would expect Phil and others to call him on it.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Cindy: “If Obama spent the same amount of money on his own wardrobe or on his wife’s, I would expect Phil and others to call him on it.”
How do we know he’s not?
Was Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe cost made into a “news” story? Nope.
The double standard is often striking.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
@Sandlin–
“I don’t recall Phil talking about her book banning.”
This is from comments Oct 20th, 11:43 am, post entitled “Jurassic Ark:”
Not quite the accuracy I expect.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Cindy- I definitely do agree with what he says most of the time. But in my profession I will not stand, in any capacity, with his degradation of women. Palin spent ……blah blah….what? We’re not even there yet. He’s switching the tracks for a reason.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Robbie, are you kidding me? Everything Hillary did was cast in the light of her being a woman. it was terribly sexist.
What people can’t seem to figure out here is that this isn’t about gender. It’s about hypocrisy.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
JUTU, you are saying *I* made this into a D vs. R thread? Take another look at it. That’s a spillover from the post I made before, linked in my post here. Jane picked it up and made it about Palin again. Granted, I did refer to that incident in the other post, but the point here is many times anyone says things about Palin, they are accused of being sexist by the Republicans, even when gender roles and sexism has nothing to do with it. For criminy’s sake, she called me a racist for no reason at all.
I can’t make this any clearer.
And if you think I am advocating violence against women, then the scale of your wrongness is truly vast.
“Degradation of women”. Wow.
October 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
David D: OK, thanks for the reference. However, in Phil’s defense, we can read a story that implies that she did indeed want to ban books, and it becomes a she-said/she-said argument and who do you believe. The circumstantial evidence isn’t compelling, but is suggestive:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?fta=y
There are likely other references to the same story in other papers. So, she asked the librarian what the procedures were for banning books, but she didn’t actually want to ban any. Sure. It could happen.
That particular post, from Oct. 20th actually started off with a joke about dinosaurs and humans co-existing and Sarah Palin not being able to answer questions about that without her head exploding. perhaps that comes from this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palinreligion28-2008sep28,0,3643718.story
So, while the stories may not be well grounded with deep research and evidence, they are also not pulled out of the blue. Snopes and other sites I checked didn’t fact check these particular stories so we’re left to our own conclusions. We do know she’s a born again Christian. Many born again Christians do believe humans walked with dinosaurs and want to ban books, so it isn’t much of a stretch to believe stories presented by mainstream news papers saying that she does too.
John B. Sandlin
October 27th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Obama will leave 98% of us with the same level of taxation we have now.
What happened to 95%?
People still believe campaign promises, huh? Amazing. Truly amazing.
What happens when “tax the rich!” doesn’t generate nearly as much revenue as anyone thought? (And it won’t, trust me on that.)
That’s when the cap on the Social Security tax gets moved up, and that’ll affect more than 5% (or 2% or whatever the propaganda is now) of the taxpayers. In fact, the O-man has suggested eliminating the cap altogether.
That would give me a 12.5% tax increase to help support a broken government Ponziesque scheme that should have been retired (heh heh) ages ago, all because I chose to live a responsible life and learn some marketable skills. Yay!
You really think the country can return to the scientific and technological powerhouse it once was with most people on the dole?
And yet I STILL can’t vote for McCain/Palin because the suckage there is just so awesomely horrific. This is the single WORST election EVER for intelligent and truly skeptical people who work hard and have their lives together. I HATE John McCain for even running at his age. I wish he’d never gotten out of that POW camp. That’s the level of hate I feel for him, for giving the country this rotten choice.
The only reasons I support Obama is that:
1. I can weather it for the most part given my move to real estate over the past decade. My friends/partners and I made smart choices that have been largely unaffected by the current crisis.
2. The GOP needs to be blasted into smithereens, the smithereens stomped on, and then burned repeatedly with magnesium powder. Hopefully, some sort of phoenix can rise from the ashes.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:17 am
“”2. The GOP needs to be blasted into smithereens, the smithereens stomped on, and then burned repeatedly with magnesium powder. Hopefully, some sort of phoenix can rise from the ashes.”
No, hopefully not!
While I agree that what I call the “Retardican” party needs to depart from power in a very overwhelming and well-deserved deafeat, I’d like to see at least one of the Wrong wing US parties disappear forever and be replaced by a genuinely left wing party – which of course the Democratics are NOT.
(Since McCarthyism the USA has *NO* real political Left wing – a major national imbalance that has created many problems incl. Bush the Lesser’s crazy reign.)
A US Greens party along the lines of the German or Australian greens would be perfect!
In My Humble Opinion Naturally.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Italics stuff up *SIGH* Take II
——————-
Quiet Desperation said :
”…2. The GOP needs to be blasted into smithereens, the smithereens stomped on, and then burned repeatedly with magnesium powder. Hopefully, some sort of phoenix can rise from the ashes.”
No, hopefully not!
While I agree that what I call the “Retardican” party needs to depart from power in a very overwhelming and well-deserved deafeat, I’d like to see at least one of the Wrong wing US parties disappear forever and be replaced by a genuinely left wing party – which of course the Democratics are NOT.
(Since McCarthyism the USA has *NO* real political Left wing – a major national imbalance that has created many problems incl. Bush the Lesser’s crazy reign.)
The USA – and the rest of the planet too – will be a lot better off without any Republican party or Neo-Con lunatic Wrong wing party at all.
A US Greens party along the lines of the German or Australian greens would be perfect!
In My Humble Opinion Naturally.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:33 am
@Andre-
A well written, though missing-the-point post. I hope you get paid for your writing.
If anyone wants to talk seriously, my email is available on my website.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:10 am
QD, much of our current deficit was created when Bush pushed through his tax cuts for the wealthy—which were supposed to be temporary (not that I—or anyone with a brain—believed THAT for a moment). We were promised that the tax cuts would be allowed to expire if the the deficit returned. Another Republican lie.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Isn’t it amusing that people like Rush Limbaugh are crying “sexism” for ANY criticism of Sarah Palin, when they have been doing FAR WORSE to Hillary Clinton for years now.
Any partisan has to be a hypocrite…but, really, Republicans are just…incredible.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Thought it would be instructive to post some of Republican hero Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Hillary Clinton:
“Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
“She sounds like a screeching ex-wife.”
“I’ve got some interesting, juicy details on this book on Hillary by Ed Klein, but I’m not going to be the first to mention them. I’m not going there. It will come out eventually. It has to do with sexual orientation, and I’m not going to be the one. That’s the book that everybody says is going to be presenting a firestorm.”‘
“”You have to understand the mindset of a lot of these feminists and women…These women have paid their dues. They’ve been married two or three times; they’ve had two or three abortions; they’ve done everything that feminism asked them to do. They have cut men out of their lives; they have devoted themselves to causes and careers. And this — the candidacy of Hillary Clinton — is the culmination of all of these women’s efforts.”
“She was the only one sitting there who could not cross her legs.”
“”Her big success has actually been the 35 years of bimbo eruptions, ruining the reputations of the pretty girls who’d bopped up and said that they had had affairs with Bill Clinton. … The ‘Bimbo Eruption Operation,’ that was pretty successful out there.”
“How did a woman — I ask you this question: How did a woman who is connected by chromosome to more than half the electorate — that would be women, for those of you in Rio Linda — how did a woman connected by chromosome to more than half the electorate, who doesn’t have an experienced rival — don’t tell me Edwards, don’t tell me Obama. She does not have an experienced rival. How did that woman go from inevitable, to down-and-dirty, to the testicle lockbox, to her red-faced husband showing that even he, too, gets PMS?”
October 28th, 2008 at 9:06 am
QD, much of our current deficit was created when Bush pushed through his tax cuts for the wealthy—which were supposed to be temporary (not that I—or anyone with a brain—believed THAT for a moment). We were promised that the tax cuts would be allowed to expire if the the deficit returned. Another Republican lie.
What are you talking about? The tax cuts still expire in 2010, as planned.
After the 2003 tax cuts, tax revenues continued to increase. Thye GDP’s annual growth went from 1.7% to 4.1%. Outside the magical elf world of ideologies, tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Tax cuts for the rich? The share of the tax burden of the top 20% went from 81% to 85%. For the next quintile it went from 13.5% to 13.8%. The lower 60% saw their tax share decrease. All the numbers are available from the CBO for anyone to see.
The deficit increase was caused because the idiot GOP has become big pig spenders like the Dems. It’s what drove a lot of Republicans away from the party.
But you keep living in magical elf world, Daff.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Back to the book banning. These are the facts as far as I can tell. Correct me if I’m wrong on anything
-The Librarian says that on up to three different occasions, Palin asked about removing objectionable books from the library.
-The Palin camp concedes this.
-The librarian took the question seriously and said she would have none of it.
-The Palin camp says the inquiries were just made out of curiosity.
-The Librarian doesn’t recall if certain books were discussed.
Unless you really believe that someone would casually bring up banning books out of curiosity, nothing Phil said was inaccurate.
What’s still in question is
-Was the firing of the Librarian related to her refusal to consider banning books? The Palin camp says no. The Librarian says “No Comment.”
-Were specific books discussed? The Palin camp says no. The Librarian doesn’t recall. An associate of the Librarian claims that at the time the Librarian told him of specific books.
What’s bothersome to me is that the Palin camp has dismissed the issue by claiming that “Specific books weren’t discussed”, and by attacking the credibility of the Librarians associate. Even if we concede that specific books weren’t discussed, and the Librarians associate is Charlie Manson, the whole episode is still troubling.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
@Jose–
Perhaps Palin was asking to see how the librarian would respond if someone in the community asked for a book to be banned. There apparently was some type of formal procedure in place to have books banned from the library; this antedated Palin’s tenure.
“no comment” and “don’t recall amount to no answer at all; therefore, you have to go by answers that were actually given in the absence of anything to contradict them. So, no specific books were discussed. It is also clear that, in the context of other firings at the time (of other political appointees), the librarian’s attempted firing had nothing to do with the banning question. You are aware that Palin re-hired her almost immediately after public outcry, and she continued to serve Wasila until just before Palin’s 2nd term. Where did Palin’s camp attack the librarian’s credibility?
So Phil’s statment, is, alas, less than accurate.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
If there was a real reason for firing her, then re-hiring would have been the wrong decision. If there was no good reason, then firing her was the wrong decision.
On the one hand, we have a reasonable VP that gets freaked out when public cries out due to the media’s presentation of a decision, and on the other, we have a VP who acts unreasonably when she thinks she can get away with it and backpedals when the media gets a hold of it.
If there are ways to read these events in a positive light for Palin as VP, I’m somehow missing it – anybody care to enlighten me?
October 28th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
The point I believe here (somewhere way back up in this post) is that contrary to what BA said, there is NO EVIDENCE that Palin ever banned any books, or ever tried to ban any specific books.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
If there was a real reason for firing her, then re-hiring would have been the wrong decision. If there was no good reason, then firing her was the wrong decision.
There does not have to be any reason, wrong or right, to fire political appointees. It is done all the time. They serve at the whim of the person who appointed them, or in this case, their successor.
Your “wrong or right” reasoning mischaracterizes this situation, and does not apply here.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Sooooo…. you’re saying she did it without any reasons at all?
That’s even more frightening than I had anticipated!
October 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
@Walruss–
Yes–all politicians do this all the time. There does not have to be any reason, wrong or right, to fire political appointees. Not frightening at all, unless you are somehow frightened by politics.
Also, read the story. The librarian was re-hired the day after, and served until she resigned a few years later.
The point of this particular train of thought, however, was not the reasons why the librarian lost her job. It had to do with BA’s inaccurate statements about Palin and book banning.
October 28th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
@David D
Let’s go back to your first misleading statement.
I and others have pointed out some of the inaccuracies regarding, for example, Palin and book banning and her creationist beliefs. See previous posts.
And on those occasions, there have been many more people explaining how and why you were wrong, so even assuming you still think you’re right, using these as examples is misleading at best. There are many examples of Phil definitely being wrong, but these ain’t it.
Now back to books.
Perhaps Palin was asking to see how the librarian would respond if someone in the community asked for a book to be banned
IF that is true, you could say Phil’s statement was less than accurate. But you can’t say it’s true, and there’s no good reason to believe it’s it is.
“no comment” and “don’t recall amount to no answer at all; therefore, you have to go by answers that were actually given in the absence of anything to contradict them.
No you don’t. I’m not trying to make a legal case here, just a common sense case. So I can ask what circumstances would lead somebody to respond with “no comment”. The most likely answer I can think of is that she doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of the most powerful person in the state. She already knows what that’s like.
So, no specific books were discussed.
Again, it doesn’t matter to me what specific books she wants banned. The only reason it’s relevant is because it’s that’s what they’re denying. What they’re not denying is that the conversations took place.
It is also clear that, in the context of other firings at the time (of other political appointees), the librarian’s attempted firing had nothing to do with the banning question.
No it’s not.
You are aware that Palin re-hired her almost immediately after public outcry, and she continued to serve Wasila until just before Palin’s 2nd term. Where did Palin’s camp attack the librarian’s credibility?
I didn’t say they did. They attacked the credibility of the librarian’s associate. That she was rehired after public outcry does not work in Palin’s favor.
The point I believe here (somewhere way back up in this post) is that contrary to what BA said, there is NO EVIDENCE that Palin ever banned any books, or ever tried to ban any specific books.
And that’s not what Phil said. Here it is again.
Phil clearly said WANT, and there’s still good reason to believe she wanted to ban books. And if this is the case I’m assuming she wouldn’t want to ban the ones she did like.
October 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
@Jose–
OK–There is NO EVIDENCE that Palin wanted to ban books she didn’t like. Do you have any?
“Books she didn’t like” would fall into the category of specific books.
Perhaps Palin was asking to see how the librarian would respond if someone in the community asked for a book to be banned
IF that is true, you could say Phil’s statement was less than accurate. But you can’t say it’s true, and there’s no good reason to believe it’s it is.
There’s also no good reason to believe it isn’t. And I’m not sure what you mean by “she doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of the most powerful person in the state. She already knows what that’s like.” She certainly made it clear that she was willing to stand up to the governor over the issue, and kept her job for a few years. Are you saying that she was so intimidated that she cna now only repsond with “no comment?”
Look, I think I have presented reasonable explanations as to why these events occurred. You have presented reasonable alternative explanations. Unfortunately for this discussion, there is no smoking gun here. It’s simply how we each look at what happened, filtered through our own political bias. You can interpret what happened as you like, but the fact remains–no books were banned. The “Palin banned book list” was fake. There is no clear evidence that she wanted to ban books she didn’t like, only one person’s biased interpretation of events.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
@David D.
OK–There is NO EVIDENCE that Palin wanted to ban books she didn’t like. Do you have any?
Direct evidence, no. Circumstantial evidence, yes.
“Books she didn’t like” would fall into the category of specific books.
Specific books would be: Moby Dick, Harry Potter, or Scruffy the Satanic Schnauzer.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “she doesn’t want to be on the wrong side of the most powerful person in the state. She already knows what that’s like.”
I mean that she was on the wrong side of Palin once, and was fired. Whether it was because she supported the other candidate, wouldn’t ban books, or some other reason doesn’t matter. She was on the wrong side, and was fired.
She certainly made it clear that she was willing to stand up to the governor over the issue, and kept her job for a few years.
To me, saying “no comment”, is a long way from standing up for Palin. Standing up for Palin would be saying “I don’t believe Palin fired me for refusing to consider banning books.”
Are you saying that she was so intimidated that she cna now only repsond with “no comment?”
Pretty much. I’m not saying that’s definitely the reason. I’m just saying that in this case, I think it’s the most likely explanation as to why someone would answer a straightforward question with “no comment”.
Look, I think I have presented reasonable explanations as to why these events occurred. You have presented reasonable alternative explanations. Unfortunately for this discussion, there is no smoking gun here. It’s simply how we each look at what happened, filtered through our own political bias. You can interpret what happened as you like, but the fact remains–no books were banned. The “Palin banned book list” was fake. There is no clear evidence that she wanted to ban books she didn’t like, only one person’s biased interpretation of events.
I can agree with this. To me, looking at what we do know, I think it’s far more likely that she did want to ban books. And I know the banned book list was false. That’s why I didn’t base my argument on it. But without a smoking gun, Phil’s statement is not falsified.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
. . . and without a smoking gun, Phil was wrong to present his statement as FACT.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Specific books would be: Moby Dick, Harry Potter, or Scruffy the Satanic Schnauzer.
Nobody has presented any evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that there were specific books she didn’t like and wanted banned. (You read Scruffy, too?)
I mean that she was on the wrong side of Palin once, and was fired.
And immediately re-hired–by Palin, and kept working–for Palin. I never said she was “standing up for Palin.” That doesn’t make sense. She clearly stood up to Palin, and she clearly kept her job until SHE decided to quit.
the most likely explanation as to why someone would answer a straightforward question with “no comment”.
Really? The most likely? I can think of others, equally “most likely.”
It’s a series of events, at least some of which are open to interpretation. And no where else in her record as an executive does she demonstrate any inclination towards or actual banning of books.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“Face it: the next week or two I will not be posting less on politics. I’ll be posting more.”
See ya in two weeks then.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
…and without a smoking gun, Phil was wrong to present his statement as FACT.
I’ve argued this with other statements Phil has made, but looking at all the circumstances in this case, I honestly see this as the only reasonable explanation. So I have no problem with it.
Nobody has presented any evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that there were specific books she didn’t like and wanted banned.
There is eyewitness evidence from the Librarian and Palin that they talked about banning books on several occasions. It’s a fact that the woman was a librarian, and that Palin had the power to fire her. And who cares if they did or didn’t talk about specific books. I think we can all agree that no one would ever consider banning books randomly.
And immediately re-hired–by Palin, and kept working–for Palin. I never said she was “standing up for Palin.” That doesn’t make sense. She clearly stood up to Palin, and she clearly kept her job until SHE decided to quit.
But only due to public outcry. She may have technically been working for Palin, but I doubt Palin would have spent all that much time at the library being an overbearing boss. Even if she was, I think most people have can relate to having a horrible boss at one time or another. I’ve stayed in awful jobs with awful bosses for a lot longer than 2 years due to a lack of good alternatives.
She clearly stood up to Palin, and she clearly kept her job until SHE decided to quit.
To me, it looks like she clearly didn’t stand up for Palin. She gave the answer you give when you don’t want to tell the truth or lie. It’s the answer you give when you’re trying not to stir the pot. That she wasn’t fired after being rehired is irrelevant.
Really? The most likely? I can think of others, equally “most likely.”
I can’t.
October 28th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
@Tony- “Sadly, you site has turned into a political machine that I just can’t take anymore.”
A Point: It’s a blog, not the actual Bad Astronomy site. Please, please, don’t let the give and take on a Comments section of a BLOG sour your opinion of the actual Bad Astronomy site. Re-link to the BA site itself if you don’t want to deal with the vitriol here. In a time when most information received via net, print, or broadcast must be ingested with a cup of salt, it is getting rarer to find accurate, scientific websites that don’t bore you to death with dry commentary. Phil has done a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes down to sifting the science for us, the general public.
Phil, I hope you _do_ continue with both the BA site and this blog- FSM forbid we readers lose sight of the fact that other humans can have opinions beyond our own. I don’t think that your opinions here on the blog make the science there on BA any less fascinating and informative.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
QD,
The ONLY reason those tax cuts may expire is because the Republicans might—might!—not be in power.
I’ll ignore your ad hom…you’re just desperate.
October 29th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Re Shane
Maybe Mr. Shane should look more carefully into why Bob Park and Steven Weinberg think that manned space flight is a waste of money. A little Google searching will provide a more complete discussion then Prof. Park can provide in his one paragraph snarks on his web site.
However, for the benefit of Mr. Shane, I will provide a capsule statement. Their opposition is entirely based on their assertion that manned space flight provides no technological spinoff or scientific discovery that is not also provided by robot space exploration. On the other hand, manned space exploration is far more expensive then unmanned and, given the limitations of NASA funding, totally fails all cost effectiveness analyses.
October 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Really SLC? I wasn’t aware of that. Please tell us more…
*sigh*
October 29th, 2008 at 9:54 am
@Daffy
It’s only an ad hom if I didn’t address your claims, which I did.
I consider political ideologues no better than religious loons, and will treat them with the approptiate level of derision as I see fit. If you are going to peddle propaganda and lies, be prepared to deal with people telling you exactly what that says about you.