If Metro were refusing to hire people who cooperate with law enforcement agents and pitch in to help enforce the immigration laws -- lumping them in with racist prison gangs -- yet had no compunctions about hiring members of any number of radical "Aztlan" groups with long Hispanic names that actually oppose enforcement of the immigration laws, that would be a concern.

In fact, Metro spokesmen called me back Wednesday to assure me that -- although that question once appeared on a document Metro calls a "personal history questionnaire" -- the language naming those specific groups was removed in 2005, and was accessible on the department's Web site only because a link to the out-of-date form was mistakenly left active.

As late as Friday, a Metro spokesman could not confirm whether the "Minuteman" group referred to in the pre-2005 form was Jim Gilchrist's current group, or some earlier outfit with the same name.

"Our position as an agency is we don't target any group, any individual organization," says Metro personnel Lt. Charles Hank. "We evaluate everyone on their background and their merit; if they've done something illegal -- no matter whether they represented themselves by their name or by their organization -- they may not qualify" to work for Metro.

Works for me.

-- -- --

Last week's best e-mail, though, was slugged "Vin the stupid."

"In his latest column ('Who cares about cause?' Nov. 11) Vin Suprynowicz states 'Polar bears are not vanishing; their populations have been growing for 25 years,' " loyal reader C.K. of Henderson wrote in.

"One wonders where Mr. Suprynowicz comes up with his facts, since polar bear populations are tied to Arctic ice pack, which has been declining precipitously in the last several years.

"The statement is typical of Mr. Suprynowicz's dissociation with reality on issues like global warming, unfortunately not singular when it comes to the Review-Journal's editorial staff. ..."

Cheerfully rallying to the cause of the War on Ignorance, I wrote back:

Hi, C.K. --

Polar Bear International, a polar bear conservation group (That's your side) reports at http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/ "After the signing of the International Agreement on Polar Bears in the 1970s, harvests were controlled and the numbers increased. There is no argument from anyone on this point."

The Telegraph, an esteemed British daily, reported on Sept. 3, 2007 (at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml, under the headline "Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'): "Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study. ...

"A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

" 'There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,' said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals. ..."

Thanks, C.K., for demonstrating once again that facts have little bearing on the arguments of the 'Global Warming' alarmists, who are content to recommend policy based on what "ought" to be happening.

-- -- --

That, in turn, brought to mind a recurrent tactic of those who claim "science" provides irrefutable grounds for whatever government command-and-control edicts they want to issue now -- a ban on smoking while eating fried chicken in a local tavern at 1 a.m., let's say, on the grounds that your "secondhand smoke could harm the children."

Find a massive study to the contrary, published in as esteemed a journal as that of the British Medical Society, and how do those who favor ever more government control respond? They dismiss all such findings, claiming those who did the study were "funded by the tobacco industry."

Isn't it interesting how half the scientists in the world -- those whose work is funded by private foundations -- can be entirely ignored since those scientists will apparently lie and make up complete nonsense to please their greedy corporate masters (and somehow hoodwink prestigious medical journals into publishing their guff), whereas all government-funded studies rest beyond reproach?

Let us consult on this convenient presumption with Robert Higgs, senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute, editor of the quarterly journal The Independent Review, and author of numerous books and more than 100 articles in scholarly journals.

In his recent paper "Peer Review and Scientific Consensus," Dr. Higgs writes:

"Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to 'peer-reviewed research' and 'scientific consensus' as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.

"The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees. ..."

Mr. Higgs goes on to point out how, 30 years ago, it was "the scientific consensus" that we were entering a new ice age. "Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them ... were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the U.S. government.

"The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world," Mr. Higgs continues. "Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another's work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a 'top' journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions. ...

"In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything ... dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. ... (A) good rule of thumb for the non-scientist might be: government-funded research that is used to justify that government's policy should be suspect, whether or not it's peer-reviewed. ..."

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the novel "The Black Arrow."