Here's one from National Review Online showing that enviro-nuts and peace freaks, who are generally the same people, fall into a massive contradiction according to their own alleged reasoning when they oppose a good Saddamizing of Saddam. Jerry Taylor, one of the authors, is someone who's written other articles, all enviro-nut-bashing, that I've read. He generally has the goods, as far as I can tell; that is, what he says as far as the facts go almost always checks out with what other writers and sources I know and trust also say. My problem with him, though, and let me emphasize that I generally agree with what he says, is that he's such an anti-enviro partisan that I sometimes feel he'd be capable of twisting evidence, of making the facts fit the theory, just to score a few debating points. Maybe it's because of his style. I can't but help think that he's a lawyer, and if I remember right he used to be a lobbyist. It seems like there's a little drop of Three-in-One on everything Taylor writes, he's so slick. Just not quite slick enough; if your slickness shows, you're not really slick. Now how's that for an unfalsifiable hypothesis?