I’ve not tried to post any “facts” concerning old forests, wetlands etc. I have simply pointed out that you have not posted any facts supporting YOUR view of the old forest/wetlands/Republican “situation”. It is that lack of factual evidence that I believe makes your posts declaring Republicans to be “anti-environment” to be rhetoric and nothing more.

“I suggest we end this here as overly off-topic.”

The particulars of wetlands etc. are off topic, but the over use of rhetoric devoid of fact is certainly applicable to space politics.

That sort of rhetoric when used by Conservatives in reference to Liberals has in the recent past deemed to be “mean spirited” and without place in civil discourse. Yet I now hear Howard Dean openly declaring Republicans to be idiots, Liberal web sites selling shirts bearing slogans urging Tom Delay to kill himself and Liberal talk shows running commercials imitating the shooting of President Bush over proposed Social Security changes. This type of Liberal rhetoric takes “mean spiritedness” to an entirely new and previously unexplored (in democratic nations) level.

My statements, “Republican attempts to roll back or eliminate laws protecting old growth forests and wetlands” and to “pave over huge swaths of irreplaceable wetlands and cut down the last old growth forests” become in your words, “paving those areas over completely,” which is not close to what I said.

Your comments are every bit as devoid of facts (and accurate quotes) as you say mine are. I don’t believe that my statements would be particularly controversal even among many Republicans: many of them seem proud of what they are doing. But, you might ask yourself why a moderate Republican in charge of the EPA quit rather than continue to implement the administration’s policies.

I suggest we end this here as overly off-topic.

— Donald

And how is rolling back or eliminating some laws with regard to old growth forests and wetlands the same as paving those areas over completely? Please site specific examples of Republican attempts to take a unique protected area and turn it into a parking lot. Changing a law that prohibits “all development” in a certain forested or wetland area so that instead “some development” is allowed is being misrepresented as totally destroying the area in question. That isn’t factual that is ideological rhetoric.

“The difference is, I admit that some of my opinions are driven by ideology, and you, apparently (and in common with many conservatives who pretend that conservative ideology and objective truth are synonomous) do not.”

How do you arrive at that conclusion? You would first have to site a specific example along with factual evidence and then I would have to dismiss your factual evidence purely on conservative ideological grounds. You’ve not sited such evidence you have only engaged in the sort of rhetoric and name calling that Mr. Brown first sited as being harmful.

If you are “unaware” of Republican attempts to roll back or eliminate laws protecting old growth forests and wetlands, you are every bit as ideologically blind as I may be.

The difference is, I admit that some of my opinions are driven by ideology, and you, apparently (and in common with many conservatives who pretend that conservative ideology and objective truth are synonomous) do not. In fact, my support for human exploration is largely driven by ideology, and that is most likely true of everyone on this list — whether they chose to admit it to themselves or not.

— Donald

However, in addition to what I quoted above, my friend also says that the appointees at the top have pushed down some very unfortunate decisions that will negatively affect California’s fresh water supply and have refused even to listen to the scientists in the field, let alone follow their advice. I believe it is fair to call such an appointee an ideolog.

However, to be fair myself, I do not always agree with the environmental community — particularly on issues relating to spaceflight — and, if it’s a choice between human exploration and Earth science I would find that an easy choice. The environmental community certainly has its share of ideologs who are just as “uncompromising” (from my dictionary’s definition of ideolog) as those in the Bush Administration who would happily pave over huge swaths of irreplaceable wetlands and cut down the last old growth forests for very short-term economic gain.

— Donald

Come on Donald, I think that statment is part of the “fight between your two sides” that Mr Brown was talking about.

Why is it that anyone who doesn’t agree with you on the solutions to enviromental issues is “anti-environment”?

No change = no headlines.

To the degree that this is true, it might also explain why there has been relatively little change in NASA’s Earth science program.

— Donald