Unfortunately for Americans (I'm in the US) where we have these things called "elections", we do often have to choose between only two real options. In this case I'm not even sure what Kerry's standpoint was on the environment, but I didn't like his views on the Patriot Act (he voted for it) or his views on the Iraq invasion (he voted for giving Bush the power to do it & then made a U-turn for political reasons -- which inconsistency I despise). I still voted for him because I despised Bush more ;).
So while I agree with you in theory, in the real world it's different. I can't stand Bush, but I also find most of his real political opposition to be anti-reason. Who do I support? Kucinich? Or Dean? Or Al Sharpton, who makes an awful lot of sense? I would have voted for McCain just based on consistency, but Bush managed to torpedo him in 2000... so I'm left with whomever the Democrats support. Which unfortunately was Kerry.
All of which is besides the point, eh? I think Crichton is dangerous but not necessarily wrong. And I really like your face-hugger image!
tk, I'd go even further and say only people following the scientific methodology are scientists, whatever the others may call themselves.
On a side note, I wish I didn't have to post a full diary entry to respond personally to you folks. Is Advogato undergoing much development these days? It would be nice to add a comment ability.
--titus