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.

*sigh*

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.

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.

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.

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.

See ya in two weeks then.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

And she didn’t want to burn books, just ban the ones she didn’t like.

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.

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.

That’s even more frightening than I had anticipated!

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.

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?

“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.

-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.

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.

“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?”

Any partisan has to be a hypocrite…but, really, Republicans are just…incredible.

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.

——————-

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.