None of us “conservatives” are arguing that the Republican party is pro-UFO either, Zar. Stop trying to change the subject. The point here is that Phil boobed. And he boobed due to his rather hysterical (yet often justified) viewpoint of anything other than his own liberal biases. And instead of admitting he boobed, he just dug his heals in deeper.

I *never* called you a Creationist. I said you were using a “Creationist Tactic” of repeating a smear.

Secondarily, the first article I quoted was from 2000. EIGHT years ago. It shows him and his wife using a computer together. Pretty much what would happen if you couldn’t use one due to his injuries (which he has admitted makes it hard for him to use and learn)

Incidenally, Tony Blair never knew how to send an email until after he stopped being Prime Minister.

Honestly Phil, if the US Republicans get their act together under reasonable folks like Crist or Huntsman (Which I hope they do), your head is going to explode big time with all the hypocrisy going on.

As I said, I’ll downgrade my criticism to “seeking snarky webclips.”

The point I was trying to emphasize — I failed to though — was that it seemed the meat of the post was regarding the legitimacy of the science funding in the stimulus bill, and you can have that conversation without mentioning Bobby Jindal or John McCain. It’s not too dissimilar from what Phil says in this post. Phil could have chosen his words differently. He could have just left out the 2nd to last paragraph in his initial post and probably avoided a lot the attacks, but I feel he’s just extending the “Us vs. Them” game.

“And the tone of that comment makes it clear he is deriding science. He could have said, “Investing in astronomy won’t help the common citizen put dinner on the table” which would have been no less inaccurate than what he said, but wouldn’t have been insulting…”

I understand your point, and I understand the link Phil was trying to make. So I’ll say this, Phil wasn’t trying to use Ad Hominen, but to me, it came across that way. The examples he uses don’t seem to be related to the claims he is refuting. John McCain doesn’t understand computers and can’t email; therefore, he can’t think critically about science issues. I think that’s way too much of a stretch. Had this been about Net Neutrality, ok, his lack of experience on the internet is completely valid, but certainly his lack of email/computer aptitude shouldn’t be carte blanche to use against him over anything related to science. In fact, I think John McCain has shown the ability to think critically about science and technology. He did so in voting for the expansion of embryonic stem cell research despite his pro-life position.

I think that’s why Phil brought Jindal to the table. McCain isn’t religious, in fact, the religious people hate McCain. So he brings Jindal in with his Exorcist and Creationist views to help round out his arguement in a guilty by association kind of way. Do I think Jindal can think critically about science? Absolutely. I don’t think that’s in question. How does someone graduate with honors in Biology from an Ivy League school if they can’t think critically about science? Or score in the 90th percentile on their MCATs and get accepted into Harvard Medical School?

The problem people have with Jindal is that he puts aside his knowledge of science and critical thinking skills in favor of his religious beliefs. That’s where you see his illogical comments about creationism and exorcism. But, do those beliefs disqualify him from commenting on other aspects of science? What about his religious beliefs would affect his views against Volcano monitoring, especially in the scope of economic stimulus? What if someone proposed money for Volcano monitoring after the recession as protection against loss of life? I have a hunch that he would support it. After all, after Katrina, he allocated a billion dollars of state funds, and asked for federal funds for the Coastal Gulf states, for restoring wetlands to protect against tidal surges from Hurricanes. That’s funding a scientific undertaking somewhat similar to volcano monitoring, but doing it through proper means, and not slipping it in an Economic stimulus bill. Moreover, his comments on global warming: “I think [we should] let the best science decide,” Jindal said when asked his opinion on the global warming debate. “It’s pretty clear to me that the land is sinking, the water’s rising, and that means that we better act today.” When it comes to Non-religious issues, Jindal isn’t the anti-science boogeyman he is made out to be.

I think Phil’s arguements about McCain and Jindals’ science aptitude and critical thinking skills were intentionally unrelated. To me, that’s ad hominen. But if Phil says he meant no personal attack than, ok, I apologize. I’ll just settle on saying that Phil’s article was just trying to make snarky webclips.