Have you ever noticed that while environmentalists are ever-so-concerned about every last balance of nature, and the effect that something might have on the furbish lousewort, they are never concerned about what effect their policy will have on human beings and the economy?

Why not limit the man-caused contributions until the facts are known and the effects can be judged acceptable or not?

Because the proposals like those at Kyoto to cut back our civilization are not without consequence. More people are killed by poverty in this world than by pollution or any other cause. In any case, I think I have established that the radical environmentalist wackos are far more interested in the destruction of capitalism and the West than in any real environmental issue. Remember cold fusion?

Somehow, we are expected to adapt to whatever crackpot notion the wackos come up with, but Gaia forbid that some obscure species might have to adapt to us.

A similar attitude can be seen in Democratic government financing, where we are told again and again that the slightest cut in their budget would have untold and horrific consequences, and that there is no way the government can get by with less money. But somehow nobody ever asks the American citizen how he is going to manage to come up with the extra taxes that they so cheerfully propose, and how he is going to get by with less money. We'll adapt, I suppose.

Nope, conservatives, with their fear of ideas (teaching about communism is teaching communism to them, for instance, teaching about safe sex is urging kids to have sex, to their minds), and their black and white view of the world, their wanting to be judged by intentions (the end justifies the means), will invariably be wrong.

It is liberals who base their actions on intentions rather than results. Look at just about any social program.

I'm assuming that your little dig on communism is related, however distantly in terms of logic, to my complaints about practicing Marxists teaching in universities. The latter advocate Marxism, by definition, or they wouldn't BE Marxists.

I assume that you would have no trouble with a practicing Nazi teaching the history of WWII in a school either, or a NAMBLA member teaching kids about sex. Naturally, they would have no trouble separating their views from their teaching curriculum, right?

And if liberals have no fear of ideas, try getting tenure at a university if you're a conservative, or making a conservative speech on a campus.