The asinine CO2 bill in California has passed both Houses, and is waiting for the Governor's signature. If even one of these ignorant yammerheads in Sacramento could give me the chemical formula for carbon dioxide, I'd eat my hat.

An interesting article on environmentalism today in the WSJ.

The last paragraph is telling:

...But it might also have helped if the administration had offered a more clearheaded and principled alternative to the "pristine wilderness" argument the environmental left advanced in the ANWR debate. At the core of this alternative must be insistence that democratic capitalism, with its emphasis on property rights, economic incentives and individual responsibility, is perfectly consistent with reasonable protection of environmental values--that, indeed, democratic capitalism represents the moderate position in the environmental debate. Until the public comes to believe that, the zealots will keep on winning.

The almost pathetic failure of the Republicans to deal with this issue is just the latest example of the party backing water in the face of strong Democratic agendas. The problem here, as well as in other areas of discussion, is that the Republicans are, for political reasons, accepting as valid many of the basic leftist premises of the Democrats, and are therefore left philosophically defenseless in their opposition attempts. Democrats, with a solid and consistent socialist agenda, make the Republicans look weak and inconsistent, and so will always win this sort of battle. "Compromises" between the administration and the Democrats have always wound up with the Democrats in the driver's seat.

Ayn Rand had three rules governing the mechanics of compromise:

"1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

I have found these rules to be true in many applications. The conflict between political parties since Bush was elected is almost a textbook example.