re: #713 iceweasel

I think Jessica Palmer deals with that thoroughly in the second section of her post.

I disagree. It is clearly a partisan response and one that I wouldn’t expect from someone claiming to have a scientific background (Palmer). Additionally it is also written in a childish manner in many places although many might confuse that with snark. She even goes as far as quoting the official White House response to some of the concerns.

Some excerpts:

The sad thing here is that Carpenter’s story, like the extremist blog post that appears to be her only source (which I’ll discuss later), doesn’t recognize the distinction between talking about something and endorsing something.

snip

So let’s look at the zombietime blog post, which has the restrained, thoughtful title “John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet,” and was based on an earlier attack on Holdren in Frontpage magazine.

She is calling Zombietime blog extremist. This is what Freetoken refered to. Are you going to endorse someone that characterizes Zombietime as extremist? Just for the matter of referring to a book co-authored by an Obama administration “science czar?”

Then there’s the final paragraph:

It used to be that even in the Vatican, the Devil had his advocate. Now it seems the rules have changed: anyone who studies the Devil must worship him. Sometimes I think it’s not safe for scientists to talk about anything anymore… !

Who is Palmer referring to? Is she stating that Amanda Carpenter worships “the devil” or Zombie? Seems a bit reactionary and tinged with subtle theocratic assumptions.