> It's good to see that we're all trying to see the cred in
> everyone else's argument.

Show me your argument, and I'll try to see the cred. If you addressed the issue at hand, instead of falling back on more tired harangues about Clinton, I might be able to see something. Instead I get 'eco-terrorists.' 'Neo-Nazis.' 'Billy Jeff.' 'Bulverism.' Snore. Your mention of Bulverism was incorrectly applied. Daschle talks out of both sides of his mouth--that isn't Bulverism, or intellectual dishonesty, it's lying. He's a fraud. But so was your entire basis for bringing it up, because no one mentioned Daschle in the first place, and he's nobody's idea of an environmentalist. There are solid reasons for not trusting corporate interests when it comes to environmental issues. Not only do they have a financial stake in preserving current industrial standards, there are many well-documented instances in which corporations responsible for hideous environmental disturbances have either escaped reparations or spent many years trying to. (A recent example would be Avila Beach, CA.) I fail to see how eyeing these serial offenders' claims with cycnicism equates with Lewis' problems with the sad state of intellectual debate.

> Fair enough...I might be wrong here (again) but in
> respect of drilling in Anwar, one side of the coin
> suggests you might as well go drilling in the garden of
> eden for all the ecological damage that it will incur and
> the other side of the coin (the evil corporation side)
> suggests that drilling will be limited and could actually
> have an odd benefit here and there.

The short-term benefits are obvious. But what are the long-term benefits? If you really think the ANWR plan is based on concern for America's long-term energy supply, I'd like to hear how and why, especially in light of Cheney's recent remarks on conservation. Richard, there is no getting around the fact that this administration is firmly in the pocket of the oil industry; there is also no getting around Bush's long history of bald-faced kickbacks. I'm not suggesting that he's evil--just willfully ignorant. Of a lot of things. His recent assertions that we should open up the ANWR because it's "beautiful" (3/29/01) and because "explorationists are willing to only move equipment during the winter, which means they'll be on ice roads, and remove the equipment as the ice begins to melt, so that the fragile tundra is protected" should do well to point out the gaping holes in his understanding of the issue.

Much as you might like to poke fun at them, alternative energy sources are there. Matter of fact, both Bush and Cheney live in state-of-the-art "green" houses. Don't you think this should be our area of concentration in the face of an energy crisis? The technology is there, as is the knowledge of what we are doing to our environment. Hell, in some cases, the technology isn't even terribly advanced--I just read about a farmer in Wisconsin who runs his farm on energy derived from cow manure.

Point of fact, opening up the ANWR and the Great Lakes for oil and gas drilling is not our only choice when it comes to weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

> Or would you prefer to answer whether we should follow
> CA, try and conserve our way to rolling blackouts?

Conserve our way to rolling blackouts? I urge you, please do a little reading on the energy situation in California. Nobody conserved their way to a blackout. The problem started with an incredibly poor deregulation scheme.

> Did you just prove my point with the final sentance
> there? Are you saying "Not part of the corporate
> machine...lets conserve our way to blackouts" Or did you
> mean "Not part of the corporate machine...as long as oil
> drilling isn't happening near me, it probably isn't as
> bad, what do I care whether genuine Middle Eastern
> terrorists are getting funded by default?"

Neither. I'm saying "not part of the corporate machine...hmmm, maybe their findings haven't been tainted by shareholder agendas." What's not to understand?