Like Messrs. Limbaugh, Hannity, Boortz, etc. - DP retreats to his tried and true rhetorical model - dismissal of conservation as "kooky", and insertion of personal and unfounded judgements (little insults in essence), all for rationalization of his myopic views to a like-minded audience. DP always wins this way! The insertion of "Taliban" into this discourse was so lame.

Comparison of ludditism to resource conservation is fallacious and a poor red herring. Neo-ludditism is oxymoronic and is only used by DP's ilk. Besides, what should be smashed is the old-existing machinery, not the new technology!

If condescention cloaked in piety is ineffective, then will pleading work? I doubt it. Will calm statement of the facts and stern warning with real dialogue work? No, because the hat trick is always, "then go off and do your thing" or "walk your walk". As if there is no moral obligation whatsoever to nature, neighbors, or future generations. Sorry, we're not going to let you dam the stream and take the water.

Laws, tax policy, and environmental policy exist for a reason. It's called the common good. It's surprising and sad that libertarians only have hindsight and no foresight. It's as if all environmental, tax, and social policy from this point forward is unneccesary and overly burdensome. It's as if DP believes we have reached true enlightenment and can progress no further in terms of social and environmental policy. This is myopia.

DP deserves only one more mulligan. In a momentary lapse of knowledge DP dismisses Malthus. He might as well dismiss Adam Smith, or elementary ecology. Hello? Irish potato famine? Ethiopia over and over again? Bangladesh? What about 20th Century Europe? You know, the big H. What could have possibly manifested that? Was it pure hatred only? Could it possibly have been a lack of resources? No, It just hasn't happened to DP personally so it doesn't exist! Myopia.

Innovation. Yeah, real innovation, I'll say. it seems to me we're still pushing pistons - going on 200 years.

For the umpteenth, and last time, this is the solution. You tax fossil fuels to the point of establishing self- sufficiency, or at least a ceiling consumption. You then use the proceeds to subsidize alternative mass transportation development, alternative technologies, and telecommuting technologies/policies. We may even be able to reduce income taxes with the proceeds.

Does that sound like rolling back the clock to you?