>>geez, guys. eco-terrorists? i mean, terrorist is kind of >>a provocative word these days, don't you think?

Sorry to overstate what could have been a reasonably debatable point (for me). IMO describing the said-activists in that way is no more or less provocative than the way the left seem to think anyone right of Linda Chavez is some stooge of the neo-nazi's.

Like I said, `Bulverism` is an excellent essay, and if CS Lewis was wrong I'm relying on you to tell me otherwise.
(When I mean `wrong` I want to know *why* he is wrong, not *how* he is wrong.)

>>got to run. i'm late for a meeting of the left-leaning >>media elite. i think martin and barbra are going to be >>there passing out pamphlets and plastic explosive. i >>think theyre also serving cucumber sandwiches.

Send them my love - and a bang on the ear (who wrote that lyric?)

Far be it from me to flog a dead horse, but perhaps you could maybe photocopy `Bulverism` for Marty. Once he's read that instead of sounding like an embittered TV researcher on Leno ("HE'S A DRUNK HE'S A DRUNK") he can come across as someone who has got a substantive alternative to the current pack who are running this show.

(When I say `substantive alternative` I don't mean him rehashing the talking points of the tree/bunny huggers or a continum of Clintonism...since 75% of the country either voted the other way or didn't vote, it's a prettty unfeasible bill of goods wouldn't ya say...or is that hate speech?)

I'm not a hardfaced right-winger...if you can actually explain to me why it's ok for the Majority leader to vote against arsenic reduction, then lambast the president for doing the same thing then I'll happily join the leftist utopia. Is it something more subtle than a double-standard? If he's lying about that, how can anyone hold him up as the knight who'll lead the charge against the corrupt corporations?

The truth shall set us free,
Richard