- When JFK committed the US to putting a man on the Moon within ten years, he was committing the US government to accomplishing that feat. He wasn't talking about "market incentives" and hoping that corporations would magically get it done on their own.

- The science behind biofuels is ... wait for it ... biology. And biology as a science depends critically on an understanding of evolution. If you don't understand evolution, you really can't understand biology beyond the high-school level, if that. If we want to educate scientists who can make a biofuel-powered nation happen, we can't start with Genesis 1.

- There is not nearly enough domestic oil in the US, even including ANWR, to sustain us at current levels of consumption for the time it will take for us to achieve energy independence. If we start frantically building nuclear and wind and solar and and biofuel and hydrogen and coal gasification infrastructure right now -- I mean, if we make that our top national priority, and start shoveling money into it like we are into Iraq -- we still won't be able to get enough fuel from inside the US to keep the McMansions lit and the SUV's running, and this will be the case for years. The only way to achieve energy independence, now and in the future, involves a combination of new power sources with conservation; and "the market" has shown itself to be a miserable failure at the latter.

- Finally, the French are no more risk-averse than anyone else. That was a cheap shot based on a stereotype that relies a deep ignorance of history, and frankly, anyone who still believes the propaganda of the "Freedom Fries" crowd probably doesn't know enough about the world to be President.

Well, for one thing, Elephantman, the rumors about Clinton's sexuality are entirely the product of right-wing propagandists who believe that any woman who thinks for herself must be a lesbian. The fact that Craig was caught trolling for anonymous sex in a men's room is a matter of legal record.

I have some friends who are into this cult that's really out there. See, they worship this guy who supposedly was tortured to death a couple of thousand years ago, to atone for some sin that everyone in the world is supposed to be carrying around with them. (Apparently the guy's Dad thought this would be a good idea.) And then after the guy was tortured to death, they say, he rose from the dead! Some of the people who believe this stuff are so into the idea that they actually wear little representations of the torture device around their necks!

This is scary stuff. Should I be concerned?

Or maybe, instead, I should just accept that people are going to believe what they want to believe. The characterization of legitimate religion vs. cult is pretty much an arbitrary one, and members of "mainstream" religions who throw stones at Scientology are living in a pretty big glass house.

When you want to write an actual article about science and scientists, let us know, okay? This puff piece is about as credible as Fox News' barely-repackaged White House PR talking points.

If you know anything about science, you know that your vague, self-aggrandizing anecdote does not constitute evidence.

If you want to provide some specifics -- as others in this thread, on both sides of the argument, have done -- please do. Otherwise, please return to your regularly scheduled Broadsheet trolls.

So it could be anyone who's wearing one, for any reason.

Can you say "invitation to vigilantism," boys and girls? I knew you could!