Surely Camille reads the comments, and does at least SOME research on her subjects. So why, after the firestorm of comments directing her to evidence besides Al Gore's documentary, does she still insist on using climate change as a cheap Al Gore joke? There's a lot of hard evidence out there, but she STILL insists on being glib and dismissive about the subject.

If she really wants to be taken seriously in her opinions about science, the least she can do is demonstrate that she's looked at more evidence besides An Inconvenient Truth and Rush Limbaugh. I've never seen her address any science issue with even a grain of substance.

The only reason I can think of is that she simply enjoys pissing people off. Which seems kind of shallow.

Ummm . . . computers and electronics are not exactly green technology, people. Paper is pretty wasteful, but don't get on a high horse about how good computers are for the environment.

Anyway, the integrity of our electronic media still depends on having a power grid that works, a manufacturing system able to build high tech parts . . . in our post apocalyptic Road Warrior future, we may be forced to wear assless leather chaps and read paper books when all the cheap and easy energy is gone.

"All the arguments I have heard boil down to selfish people saying, I don't give a rat's ass about the environment, I want my book, I want my habit, I don't care about you or society."

Dude, I basically agree with you that print and electronic books can and will co-exist, and that eBooks are easy to use, etc. Doesn't take an Einstein to realize this. And sure, print newspapers and magazines are incredibly wasteful.

But the above statement is kind of offensive--especially with all of the computers stuffing our landfills. Not to mention all the pollutants created by high tech manufacturing. Electronics of all kinds are, well, kind of bad for the environment. Accusing people of selfishness because they won't adopt the latest gadget is pretty annoying.

"Nor does "starvation" justify their horrendous mistreatment of animals in the live markets, which I personally witnessed and will never forget."

Yep. We Americans prefer our cruelty where we normally can't see it, being done to cows and chickens.

"I'm in Los Angeles now and am enjoying my American Chinese food, although my experience in Chinatown haunts me to this day."

So your complaint was that the restaurant and the people weren't pretty enough?

And by the way, Chinatown in SF is the ONLY place I've ever had a bad Chinese meal, especially the tourist traps. If you go to Clement Street or the Sunset you'll get the real stuff. Also, Shanghai Dumpling King in the Richmond has the best, and cheapest dumplings in town.

Spices in the Richmond and Oakland are also highlights in the spicy new fangled fusion realm.

Then you went to the wrong place. Simple as that.

And next time you try dim sum in SF, go somewhere other than the obvious tourist traps around Grant. I just find it hard to believe that that's all you explored in a city that literally brimming with wonderful and cheap Chinese food. Everywhere.

I stayed in LA for a few days with some Chinese relatives, and there are plenty of Chinese neighborhoods that serve authentic dim sum in a clean environment. The thing is, a lot of the best Chinese restaurants don't focus on making everything refined and elegant--it's all about getting in there and eating quickly prepared, wonderful food. I've noticed over the years that friends of mine who were inexperienced in Chinese restaurants were a little taken aback by how loud and tacky everything tends to look by their standards, even in good restaurants. It's just something to get over if you want the real thing.

Logically, anyone who objects to eating dogs and cats better be a Vegan. And anyone who's a Vegan had better be pro-life.

I'm not a Vegan or Pro-Life, but I've always wondered about these conundrums--the exact same arguments are made for animal rights as "fetal rights."

Also, it's damn inconsistent to cry over dogs if you're not also going to cry over pigs and cows.

You've never heard of it because most people don't think their lines of reasoning through to the very end.

Think about it--pro-life and animal rights is all about empathy and suffering. If a partial human fetus could have a similar ability to suffer as a complete chicken (and could you really prove it doesn't? No, you can't), then you can't dodge the issue by claiming that a fetus is just an egg laid by a "companion" chicken. The argument isn't about the COMPLETENESS of a being, it's about "does _________ have the ability to feel pain or suffer?"

Sure, there's nothing that says you can't care about both people and animals, so there's no inherent conflict there. BUT, if you're really putting the "rights" of an animal above the "rights" of a fetus, that's just plain misanthropy.

Have to make clear again that I'm NOT pro-life. I'm genuinely curious as to how fundamentalists of the left and right get around their black and white rulings in a morally grey world.

Have you ever spent time with a pig? Why are they not as special as dogs and cats?