I suppose I need a better definition of what you mean when you say “anti-science.” In the context of anti-vaccination, for example, do you mean (a) ignoring scientific information, (b) using a rhetoric of objectivity to make claims based on cherry-picked evidence, (c) arguing that medical science is significantly flawed, ideological, conspiring, dehumanizing, etc., or (d) all of the above? Only (c) strikes me as anti-science and even then these arguments could be made in a pro-scientific way (to improve science). The first is simply being unscientific and the second is being pseudo-scientific.

I suppose another way one might be called anti-scientific in the political realm is if they are in favor of more modest scientific funding. Even here, though, this is not necessary an issue of being anti-science; sometimes scientists have a problem with entitlement and they think that any politician who doesn’t want to load them with barrels of unaccountable dollars to do whatever they want must be anti-scientific.

I guess I’m also wondering what exactly you’re referring to concerning anti-vaccination. Yes, many people make outlandish and unsupported claims about mercury (still not sure if this anti-scientific, and I wonder if you are referring to actual politicians/pundits or simply liberal people). But there ARE legitimate concerns about mercury as well as other vaccination issues which are largely ignored in the medical community (see Bob Sears’ blog: http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/). Is voicing these concerns anti-scientific? Moreover, I don’t see how a religious or ethical avoidance of immunization must be anti-scientific. Not that you’re saying this, but I just want to clarify that there is nothing inherently anti-scientific about anti-immunization. And, therefore, I also wonder whether the anti-immunization you are bemoaning is in fact anti-scientific.

Most of the rhetoric seems heated and superficial. I do like that despite being part of the ivy league crowd she has a lot of criminal experience as both a judge and prosecutor. I think the court needs diversity but everyone merely focuses in on racial diversity ignoring judicial diversity. (I think, for instance, we need someone from outside the Harvard/Yale corridor)