> I agree. But if we want to help them recognize > what they have to do, we need to make sure our > criticisms are justified, because if they're > ignorant--as this one is--they have no reason to > listen to us.
I am a fan of your perspective on this. > > I'm not defending Palin, I'm criticizing her > ignorant, arrogant critics (not all her critics, > just the ignorant, arrogant ones) because their > sloppy, snarky approach is *counterproductive* to > the goal of getting the Republicans to see what a > God-awful mess they've made of their party--her > nomination being the current Horrible Example. And I am enjoying being challenged on my Palin hating which is often meant to be snarky. I am incensed that she is being put in a position within striking distance of such power. Now about the punch line... I'm gunna guess that I have more experience making groups laugh than you Judy, although I could be wrong. So this is my opinion. The punch line was "fruit flies" and "Paris, France" was used to allow the audience more time to realize that it was a joke they should laugh at together. Because crowds react more slowly you often have to add something behind your punch line that signals that this is a joke was should all laugh at together if you want a crowd to actually laugh at something. They were laughing at the absurdity of doing research on fruit flies and the reference to France was the signal to all Republican insiders to whip up more contempt. Palin is experienced in entertaining crowds and has the experience for how to deliver a line for the biggest response. When she said "I kid you not" she was referring to the absurdity of doing research on mere fruit flies and not that some research was being done in Paris, France. That doesn't even make sense as a joke. So as much as I appreciate the details you have added, and can cop to missing some of your points, the same point remains clear. Palin was showing contempt for research on "fruit flies", and was not making a valid point about whether or not it is a good use of funds to study another countries agro biz problems. If that was her intention she wouldn't have focused on the laugh line concerning the fruit flies, as if this was the most relevant aspect and obvious proof of misspent funds. She was speaking to a group who collectively felt it was obvious that research on fruit flies is a laughable mistake, especially when paired with that horrible place, Paris, France. So, despite her media avoidance, we are getting a better idea of how Palin operates under her prom-night up-do. (All snark intended.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > I saw the clip. Her punch line was "fruit flies." > > <guffaw> I can only imagine your scorn if I had > insisted on which exact words were somebody's "punch > line" and based my argument on that assumption. > > I saw the clip too, and she put just as much emphasis > on "Paris, France." That the research is being done in > France is the big objection (albeit a bogus one) to > this particular earmark. > > The fact that she > > is deriding research on fruit flies in the agro biz doesn't > > help her case. Agro biz research on flies that eat olives is > > critical not only to the humans who make a living off of this > > crop, but the people who eat them and environmentalists who > > may prefer a less poisonous approach to controlling them. > > The two current approaches to getting rid of olive > fruit flies are an organic, nontoxic pesticide, and > lures, not spraying the olives with Bad Stuff. > > Yes, the research helps olive growers and their > families. But there aren't nearly as many of them as > there are disabled people who need help with their > education funding. > > > Are you saying that she was using an example of agro research > > as not benefiting children with disabilities? I wonder why > > that would be...Oh I know, its because it is a different area > > of research! > > I'm sure the research will help all the disabled > children of olive growers who can't afford an > education. > > > > The research isn't using fruit flies to learn more > > > about genetic defects in humans, as the bloggers > > > do.rflex quoted ignorantly suggest. It's using them > > > to figure out how best to keep the flies off the > > > olive trees. > > > > And you think Palin was aware of all this when she read what > > they shoved in front of her? > > Ya know, I have no idea what she was and was not > aware of, and neither do you. But that's beside > the point anyway. > > > The punch line was "fruit flies." > > "Paris, France." > > > > Nobody seems to have mentioned the fact that Palin's > > > speech was given to promote full funding of the > > > Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. > > > > Then why is she using an example of a foreign country's agro > > biz research? Perhaps an example from our own country would > > be better? > > You sure didn't read what I wrote very carefully. > It's *our* research, not France's. The institution > doing it is run by the U.S. It just happens to be > located in France. > > > Or the same field maybe? But she went for a punch line that > > exposed her cluelessness about science or even the study she > > is referring to. > > No, the only thing it exposed is that she didn't > know it wasn't "a foreign country's agro research." > But then, you didn't know that either, did you? (Not > even after you read my post explaining this.) > > > If what you say is true, that this was the source, then what was > > her complaint? That this research might save an industry that > > feeds many families? > > That money is going to help a group of people that > is smaller than would be helped by IDEA (especially > if you just count children). > > I'm sure there are arguments on both sides of this > issue, i.e., whether money spent on IDEA helps more > people than money spent on olive fruit fly research. > But it's not a slam-dunk either way, contrary to > your assumptions. > > (Not to mention that nobody except you has even > mentioned benefits to the families of olive growers > or olive consumers. They're all whining about how > fruit flies are used for research into genetic > defects, as if they thought that's what the > research Palin mentioned was. They didn't bother to > look it up before jumping on her--and you didn't > either, actually. I wouldn't be astonished if she > *did* know that fruit flies were used in research > into genetic defects. There was certainly no > indication in that speech that she doesn't.) > > She used the term fruit flies as a punch line for people > > with as little regard for science as she has shown. > > "Paris, France." > > > > So she has a point regarding this particular fruit > > > fly research: the money is designed to help olive > > > growers, not people with disabilities. > > > > I saw a study on car tires the other day also. And it had > > NOTHING to do with research on children with disabilities. > > Now can I be VP? > > Bogus analogy. > > > > If I had been writing her speech, I'd have included > > > a brief explanation of this point, if only so that > > > it wouldn't give small-minded Democratic snark- > > > meisters something else to bash Palin with. > > > > Your intention is laudable Judy. I am behind you in spirit > > and appreciate your doing this research. But you are > > reaching here. Your details don't help the point. It only > > fleshes out the details of her ignorance. > > What it's fleshing out is *your assumptions* about > the details of her ignorance, as well as some of > your own ignorance. > > > Her punch line was fruit flies. Watch the clip. > > I did. "Paris, France." > > This > > Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't save her. And > > summing up criticism of Palin's faults as small-minded > > Democratic snark-meisters wont turn Palin into an > > intellectually fit VP. She is not. > > And gosh, you just completely ignored what I told > you in my immediately previous post: > > ----- > > > Come on Shemp, defending Palin is a losing cause for > > Republicans. They need to jettison this disaster as soon > > as they can and rebuild their party without pandering to > > the worst anti-intellectuals in the world, religious > > fanatics. > > I agree. But if we want to help them recognize > what they have to do, we need to make sure our > criticisms are justified, because if they're > ignorant--as this one is--they have no reason to > listen to us. > > ----- > > I'm not defending Palin, I'm criticizing her > ignorant, arrogant critics (not all her critics, > just the ignorant, arrogant ones) because their > sloppy, snarky approach is *counterproductive* to > the goal of getting the Republicans to see what a > God-awful mess they've made of their party--her > nomination being the current Horrible Example. >
