"...you buy the argument that you shouldn't bitch and moan about logging when you live in a house built with lumber and wipe your behind with paper."

Not quite. I happen to believe that some of the old growth left should be logged. No one will ever go there, the habitation isn't needed, and if it isn't things will just rot.

And, some should. And some should be thinned.

However, there is a difference between logging everything and logging nothing. There is reason, disgression, sanity between either extreme.

What NEEDS to be done should be done as carefully as possible, should do as little damage as possible, should be responsible to others and the environment.

The weakest argument, the one being used by conservatives, is that because a nation or person can afford to pollute, destroy, wipe out, ruin they should be allowed to. That should be criminal, but seems to be the foundation of US foreign policy lately.

Responsiblility is something conservatives don't understand. I'm beginning to think they can't.

(either I correctly interpreted your title line as sarcasm or you have misjudged my political leanings)

My comments were directed, obviously, at the italicized portion of your post, the part where you quoted someone.

Arf