I stand by my earlier point. By being so profligate in his own energy use while preaching restraint to everyone else, Gore is like that slick preacher: he ain't buying what he's selling.

The day I see a detailed energy audit - verified by non-crony experts - of Gore's existence, showing he uses LESS fossil fuel than the average American, then I'll retract my criticism. Personally, I'm betting on the snowball's chance in hell instead.

My whole point is that to ignore consumption is the fatal problem with the feel-good variety of environmentalism. I'm not terribly interested in how Gore's consumption of fossil fuels compares with that of other multi-millionaires. Even assuming he got a relatively large amount of his energy from solar (is that even possible in a state like Tennessee, which is very cloudy during the winter?), I'd be willing to bet his overall "carbon footprint" is a hell of a lot bigger than mine, not to mention that of the average Chinese or anyone in the developing world.

Let me repeat: Mother Nature does not care about good intentions. If any vestige of our splendid earth, with its rich biodiversity and staggering beauty, is to be saved (not only from global warming but from unceasing "development" - a direct consequence of having no policy of population control), then we must reduce or at least not increase our consumption. When magic fairies start creating pollution-free energy for all of us, then we can use as much as we want without a care. Until then, conservation, combined with more use of renewables, is our best bet.

Ms. Walsh,

While I would agree with your assessment of the blogger who claimed you were suffering from PMS - namely, that he's an asshole - your profane retort was nonetheless unprofessional. The difference is that he was a random blogger and you were acting in your capacity as a paid writer for this publication. You, or anyone in a similar position, should be held to a higher standard than cranky readers. I'm frankly surprised your editor at the time was so nonchalant.

So, although this example does prove your point regarding sexist comments, it also undermines what I believe is your larger point: the incivility of much electronic communication in general. If a professional writer and editor can't take a few punches (even dirty ones) without escalating the situation, what obligation do general readers have to temper their outbursts?

Glenn, I've been admiring your gutsy, articulate posts for some time now, and can only say they're fantastic and far more intelligent than practically anything else I read about our grave national predicament.

My question for you and other readers regarding nuclear hysteria is: whatever happened to the old Cold War doctrine of mutually-assured destruction (MAD)? I haven't heard what I would consider a sufficient explanation for why this doctrine - stating that any nuclear attack would be futile because the aggressor would itself be destroyed by a counterattack - is completely useless in this day and age.

Yes, I understand the argument that non-state actors, like Al-Qaida, can use dirty bombs and any number of other devices designed to induce terror on a population.

But Iran - and Iraq before it - are by definition not non-state actors. I never understood why people would believe that Saddam Hussein or the Iranian regime would want to commit suicide by participating or assisting in (even indirectly) some sort of nuclear attack on the U.S. Is there any doubt that the American public wouldn't demand in-kind retaliation for a nuclear attack?

MAD, of course, did work better conceptually in the old bi-polar world, but - to your broader point about journalistic sloppiness, ignorance, corruption, etc. - I never heard or read a single analysis along these lines before the Iraq war. We were only told that we must go to war in Iraq because they might have nuclear weapons, as if no further explanation were required in light of the fact that we lived under the threat of Soviet attack for decades (and still do, of course). So far I haven't encountered any of this analysis regarding what appears to be a run-up to war with Iran.

MAD obviously carries risk and is no guarantee against nuclear war. (I would argue such a thing does not exist short of universal disarmament.) But I would be interested in reading an analysis of how or why U.S. military policy evolved in the post-Soviet era to dismiss MAD in favor of... what exactly? Trying to conquer, micromanage and police the entire world unilaterally? How does that actually make sense to anyone?

I'm afraid the only conclusion I can reach on my own is that the administration doesn't want to risk making a big part of the world's oil supply radioactive. This is a defensible goal, but of course we're not supposed to believe that the wars are about oil either.

Not Too bad Stanley Kubrick isn't alive to document our current insanity, which seems so much more irrational than the goings-on in "Dr. Strangelove".

Fascinating how a privileged white woman from Connecticut became so tough. It must have been the suffering she endured as a youth (you know - the occasional slow service at the country club, shopping trips to Manhattan only once a month or so) that made her such a badass. I bet even now she has to countenance the indignity of bad cell phone signal at times.