>>What possible harm can come from educating children about >>the dangers of pollution? Who are you trying to protect, >>really?

There's nothing wrong with that at all. The problem comes when we start getting all our information from the eco-terrorists. There's nothing wrong with that excepting for the fact that the only credential they seem to give in the hope we'll believe them is that they aren't part of the corporate machine.

The author CS Lewis wrote a great essay on their thinking, entitled `Bulverism`. The philosopher Ezekiel Bulver realised more and more that when people try to have a constructive dialogue, one side (in this case the eco terrorists) will say *WHY* corporate interests are wrong ("because they've got corporate interest") and not say *HOW* they're wrong (there might actually be a solid intellectual reason against being self-sufficient and for buying crude-oil from a sworn enemy of the state).

If you look across the political spectrum, you'll see Bulverism at work. Another good example of this is how Tom Daschle used to do stand up routines about GW not decreasing the arsenic levels in water, but nobody talked about how he voted *against* the decrease under Billy Jeff. He talked a lot about why he thought Bush was wrong (because he was a Republican) but didn't say much about how he was wrong (there were obviously other concerns that would have uncovered the fact that he voted the same way as Bush under the previous supposed-administration) Some call that double-standards, others call it intellectual dishonesty...

Richard