Environment: Let's see. James Holdren says that "what went on in the way of manipulation of data, that remains to be seen", yet opposes any actual probe. Barbara Boxer is only interested in criminal charges against the climategate whistleblower.

From the WSJ: "In the House, the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing on what Chairman Ed Markey said was 'the urgent consensus view . . . that global warming is real, and the science indicates it is getting worse.' But the only witnesses were officials from the Obama administration, who support dramatic action on climate change. Republicans asked to have a global-warming skeptic appear but were denied." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870434240457457... )

In the larger picture beyond climategate, Gore once said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience" (see http://www.grist.org/article/roberts2/ ). This is a little out of context, but in the context of what we now know about the distortions taking place, it's quite ominous.

Self-defense: Umm. You don't know what you're talking about. Carrying a semi-auto weapon is certainly self-defense. But the question is much broader than that. Here in New Jersey, as a matter of policy, it's impossible to get a carry permit for anything, including mace.

The fact is that there's a concerted attack on any form of defense, at least in parts of the country, and it extends far past even what some people feel are evil weapons, even to weapons that are clearly of only defensive use.

What does "current social consensus" have to do with it? This seems to be circular reasoning, the argument reduces to saying that "those holding the power say so, and that's sufficient justification".

Takings: This has nothing to do with Apple. What did your preceding comment have to do with Apple?

My point was that ones right to ones own property is certainly a civil right, and one which the Democrats trample with great abandon.

Hate speech: It seems to me that this isn't complex at all. "Slippery slope" might be a lame argument in general, but it turns out in practice that these laws are used more often to silence unpopular speech than to protect anyone from any real harm.

Choose your evil: My personal actions have no bearing on whether politicians singly, in parties, or across the board, are evil.

If our current politicians can be called "evil" as a group, then the word has lost all currency. You sound like a victim of BDS syndrome, the very kind of person who says that GWB is so evil that anyone else ought to be elected, just to get that evil administration out. (And, of course, there is a mirroring group ODS-sufferers now). But such actions are precisely what give politicians to be evil. They can be as evil as they want, right up to 1 unit less than whatever they can convince others is the evil of their opponent.

Blind to ones own side: Huh? What an amazingly self-centered response. Why in the world would you think I was talking to you specifically? If it matters, the answer is no. I'm talking much more broadly. That should have been obvious from my example of the phenomenon way over in China.