Problems with Palin

[Turtle]

More problems with/for Palin as an ethics complaint has now been filed in regard to the earlier AP reports on her charging her childrens' travel to the taxpayers.

Originally Posted by AP

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A new ethics complaint has been filed against Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, accusing the Alaska governor of abusing her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.

The complaint alleges that the Republican vice presidential nominee used her official position as governor for personal gain. It follows a report by The Associated Press last week that Palin charged the state more than $21,000 for her three daughters' commercial flights, including events where they weren't invited, and later ordered their expense forms amended to specify official state business.

In some cases, Palin also has charged the state for hotel rooms for the girls. ...

Palin faces ethics complaint over kids' travel - John McCain News

[modest]

Originally Posted by Nitack

How does the holding of an advanced LAW degree lend him credibility in the subject of ECONOMICS?

Good question, let's ask some independent economists...


-source (the Economist)

~modest

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

Good question, let's ask some independent economists...


-source (the Economist)

~modest

I question this stat as 18% did not know or did not have an opinion. That is significant. How can "academic economists" not know? Who exactly were they surveying?

[modest]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I question this stat as 18% did not know or did not have an opinion. That is significant. How can "academic economists" not know?

That's fair. I doubt this reflects the economists' ability with economics, but rather that somewhere near 18% felt unable to objectively analyze the ability of either or both candidates. But, that would be speculation.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Who exactly were they surveying?

This, I think I can answer with a bit less speculation. The survey is summarized at the link below with the portion relevant to your question quoted:

Originally Posted by the economist

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Examining America's presidential candidates | Examining the candidates | The Economist

I should note that the chart I posted above only reflects economists identified as independent and excludes all who responded as republican or democrat. This removes a significant amount of bias from the survey - but, I admit, bias is still evident. But, the fact that the National Bureau of Economic Research might have a liberal bias (as it appears) is far beyond the point I originally made. My point was to counter this claim:

Originally Posted by Nitack

...and on the other hand we have a socialist who doesn't understand basic economics...

Which is obviously (given the raw data of the survey above) not true. A large majority of academic economists (who responded) believe the candidate has a strong grasp of economics and support his plan.

~modest

[Buffy]

I always give The Economist a lot of leeway on this sort of thing. While they have always been on the conservative side of the spectrum--those of you who *actually read* The Economist (as opposed to simply claiming to like Sarah) know that the Lexington column (far more than the rest of the "paper") has been doubled over in its fawning of the Bush Admin for the last 6 years--they actually endorsed Obama this week....guess they're the "Liberal Media" now, and Sarah will cancel her "subscription"....

Erudition. Dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull,
Buffy

[Racoon]

Obama can't fix the problems in the next 4 years,
So Palin becomes the next candidate for 2012..
Better than Hillary.
As in having a woman President.

Only that Palin is crazier than a shithouse rat.
Yeah, she looks good, sounds good, But definitely say NO!

[Galapagos]

Jerry Coyne speaks out:
Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/31/2008

Originally Posted by Coyne

Enough already. I bit my tongue when I heard that Sarah Palin believed that dinosaurs and humans once lived side by side and that she and John McCain wanted creationism taught in the public schools.

And I just shook my head when McCain derided proposed funding for a sophisticated planetarium projection machine as wasteful spending on an "overhead projector."

But the Republican ticket's war on science has finally gone too far. Last week, Sarah Palin dissed research on fruit flies.
[...]

Why are the Republican candidates so contemptuous of science? I suppose it's part of their general attack on "elitism," which has been surprisingly effective. We white-coated nerds in our labs, fooling around with flies at taxpayer expense, are easy targets.

But America can't afford cheap shots at science, because a lot of basic research has immense implications for human welfare - even if ignorant politicians can make it sound silly. Work on fruit flies is just one example.

This year's Republican campaign has consistently attacked the values of reason and logic that undergird our democracy. If anything has led to America's high standard of living and world preeminence, it's the idea that we can advance only with the best science possible.

When Palin declares that we don't have to know what causes global warming in order to fix it, she's not only exposing herself as a scientific illiterate; she's going against two centuries of American progress in technology, medicine and science. Trying to bond with the American people by taking pride in your ignorance and making science the common enemy - now that's a bridge to nowhere.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Jerry Coyne speaks out:

Swatting attacks on fruit flies and science | Philadelphia Inquirer | 10/31/2008

While Coyne makes very good points about the importance of basic research such as fruitfly genetics, he like many people appears to have been premature in believing Young Earth Creationist claims attributed to Palin.

To the best of my knowledge, since her 2006 election as Governor of Alaska, Palin has not made a public statement affirming or negating the belief that the Earth is less than 10000 years old, or that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Claims that she believe these things appear to originate for several sources. One is an admitted satirical hoax by small blogger Bob Salsbury. Another are claims by Philip Munger, who is open in his opposition to Palin, that Palin privately confided to him that she held these beliefs.

Unlike her nationally broadcast statement that she believes the causes of climate changes are unknown, Palin’s belief in YE Creationism appears to be neither confirmed nor denied by any credible source.

That neither Palin, McCain, nor spokespeople from their campaign staff have directly confirmed nor denied this rumor illustrates, I think, a quality of American politics: it is to McCain and Palin’s advantage that voters who believe in YE Creationism believe that Palin, and perhaps McCain, share their belief, while others who do not believe that the candidates share their disbelief. Practical election politics appear at present to benefit candidates who do not clearly state their personal beliefs (or even opinions on public policy).

Sources: Palin Dinosaurs - Mahalo; »»»»»»»» »»»»»»»» Sarah Palin Dinosaurs Fake Quote - Sarah Palin Did Not Say Dinosaurs Were Here 4,000 Years Ago… »»»»»»»»; Progressive Alaska

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by CraigD

While Coyne makes very good points about the importance of basic research such as fruitfly genetics, he like many people appears to have been premature in believing Young Earth Creationist claims attributed to Palin.

It's good to see that the specific rumors about her thinking dinosaurs and people lived together 4000 years ago(or whatever Matt Damon was on about) isn't true, but I am still not comfortable at all with Palin's view of science, education, or creationism(or GW).

Massimo Pigliucci gets it right, I think:

Is Sarah Palin a Creationist? | LiveScience

Originally Posted by Pigliuuci

And therein lies the problem: exactly what are Republicans committed to when it comes to science and education? To raise a nation of ignorant bigots whose understanding of the world is no better than that of a tribe of ancient middle eastern people wandering around the desert thousands of years ago? To allow individual states to decide just how misinformed about science their citizens can be? That way if you are from Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi or a variety of other places along the Ignorance Belt you can keep falling behind in quality of life and ability to compete in a world where science plays an increasingly central role in our lives. Now, there's a platform worthy of LaHaye and his readers.

These are questions that Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain have to answer to voters before the November election. But considering that they disagree about some of those answers, perhaps the two should first get better acquainted and straighten things out a bit. They've got two months to do it.

Except I don't know if they have to straighten things out for anybody. We are now very close to election day, and I still don't know what Palin thinks, and this worries me.