I read a blog post by Michael Shermer today and was amazed to see the argument within the comments.  I understand that political ideology (the post was about the impact of regulation on the financial markets) is something that people who have a political ideology, the apathetic are excused from the following sweeping generalisation, tend to hold them pretty near and dear.  Then you have the really really really hardcore skeptics who said that Michael Shermer (who wrote ‘Why people believe wierd things’ a great book for people interested in skepticism) wasn’t being "skeptical enough" about the data he used.  WTF? He used unaltered, official statistics to make his case; What the *bleep* was he syupposed to do? Undertake a 2 year intensive, indepth investigation into the relationship between dollars spent and pages of regulation to the freedoms experienced by persons operating in the financial sector?  IT WAS A BLOODY BLOG POST, ya know topical, timely – Not an artical in the economist!

People need to harden the fruit cake up and let their insecurities go.