On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:51:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with
the "rigorous scientific analysis" it claims to employ. A radical
green wolf in sheep's clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from
the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its
recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community.
And that's what makes it so dangerous. Whether it's energy policy or
agricultural issues, UCS's "experts" are routinely given a free pass
from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that
mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Let's entertain a thought, John. Two scenarios - which is easier to back
away from?

1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as possible. Allow polluters like
coal-burning power plants to have free reign as if it were the 1950s all
over again. Allow your campaign contributors to mow down as much old growth
forest as possible before your term in office ends and the jig is up.

2) UCS: Be overly cautious, even if it means there's less land for use by
dirtbikes and snowmobiles.

Consider the results of both and tell me what's easier to fix? Your only
possible way of avoiding the question is to say that you don't believe Bush
occupies the extreme I have described, but in fact, he does.


Suppose I sent a letter to 25,000 scientists across the world asking
for signatures supporting the environmental efforts that Bush has
made. Suppose I received a positive return rate of only .5%. I could
then grab headlines with, "125 Scientists Praise Bush's Environmental
Efforts!"

Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the extreme you
stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!