So, who gets to decide if a line of research is "valuable"?
You?
I think he's expressing his viewpoint, as are you and all of us on this thread - in fact I think that's the point of this site, for the most part.
Just to let you know--research ALWAYS pays back much, much more than its cost.
I can't wait to hear how SETI has done this.
If your type had been in charge of the space program

"his type?" So since he questions SETI's usefulness, surely he would've questioned the entire space program's usefulness? What evidence do you have for this? Has he done so in the past?
Also, the space program from the start pretty much produced immediate, tangible benefits. What has SETI done in that regard?
No video games, no Ipods,
You say that like it's a bad thing.
What is real here is the need for man to explore, to invent, to think.
...all which can be (and for almost all of man's existance, has been) done w/o SETI's existance.
Curiosity and wonder are built into our species and it is part of the reason we still exist as a life form.
No argument there...
I suspect that the OP would marvel at the stupidity of owning or admiring expensive art, or at the inanity of musical talent.

More lame and unjustified cheap shots.
And in fact I have marvelled at the stupidity of owning or admiring expensive art - when it was owned or admired because of its price, something which has nothing to do with how good a given piece of art is. Pretentiousness in art (esp paintings and such) is all the rage.
You can even get PC software which doubles as a screen saver that helps with the computer time searching for a signal.
Is that still around? Yeah I thought that was pretty cool too.
PS and FYI, I'm all for SETI. I just think it's pointless and does nothing for a "pro SETI" viewpoint to rip on someone because they dared to question it.