Hi Jan,

First of all, since English is not your first language, and since our cultural norms are likely foreign to you, I want to say something explicitly to you that I leave as understood with Steve and Craig and Richard and Erik, and ..., you get the idea. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I dislike you. And though I may debate you vigorously, I am not attacking you. Only your arguments. Okay?

Now, you wrote


My whole point has been that, in point of fact, such efforts have already caused harm. I cited the bankrupted town, the deleterious effect of excessive regulation on economies, and most recently the increased hunger in South and Central America as tax-dollar spending does to corn prices what it did to health care costs.

So yes, Jan, such efforts really can do, and in fact have done, quite real harm to real people in real time. And no one, not a single one of the people pushing this new and false religion, is willing to accept the accountability of causing that harm.

Instead they hide behind a feigned veil of science that's just as false as their new religion. When challenged on the basis of the harm they do they trudge out deceptively irrelevant scientific facts. They bandy words and phrases like "scientific concensus," hoping that no one will notice their deceptions.

But then, when their deceptions are challenged and they are called on to justify their completely irrational conclusions, they suddenly switch modes and call their agenda a "moral crisis," thereby trying to silence anyone who would challenge them.

Finally, do not make the mistake of believing that there is some virtue in compromise for compromise's sake. Oh, certainly there are times when compromise is prudent, and called for. But there is no virtue in compromise with deception. When truth compromises with deception, the lie does not become true. Only the truth is changed, into a lie.

Joe