BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   And the Bush lies just keep on coming (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/3361-bush-lies-just-keep-coming.html)

basskisser February 27th 04 07:21 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
As if we needed more FACTUAL proof that Bush is nothing short of a
lying simpleton:

Mother Nature, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BushCo just really, really
loathes this planet

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 27, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Today's question: What do you get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists, 20 Nobel Laureates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed squarely at BushCo's thoroughly atrocious record of
cover-ups and obfuscations and outright lies regarding the health of
the planet?

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

If you answered, "Why, you get even more painful polyps of sadness and
disgust on your soul due to the BushCo onslaught," consider yourself
among the millions who are right now rather horrified and appalled and
who are wondering just what sort of human -- not what sort of
politician, mind you, not what sort of power broker, not what sort of
failed Texas oilman corporate lackey -- but what sort of human being
you have to be to enact such insidious ongoing planet-gouging
legislation, smirking and shrugging all the way.

It is not an easy one to answer, as you can only wonder what has gone
so horribly wrong, what sort of line has been crossed so that not even
the basic dignity of the planet, not even a modicum of respect for it,
is the slightest factor anymore in modern American right-wing
politics. What, too extreme? Hardly.

The story about the scientist's report is here. It was broadcast over
many major media channels, somewhat loud and mostly clear, though most
media was far more eager to bury it under all those more hotly
controversial pics of happy gay people smooching on the steps of
S.F.'s city hall than they were to trumpet the dire claims of a bunch
of boring genius scientists.

Such is the national priority. After all, no one wants to hear how
badly we've been duped by this administration, again. Given the
nonexistent WMDs and the complete lack of Iraqi nukes and the bogus
wars and manufactured fear and a galling budget deficit and nearly 3
million lost jobs and a raft of BushCo lies so thick you need a
jackhammer to see some light, no one wants to know that even the
world's top scientists are disgusted with our nation's leadership.

We can, after all, take only so much abuse, can be only so karmically
and ideologically hammered, before we become so utterly exhausted that
we just stop caring.

And, in fact, BushCo would love nothing more than to cripple our
outrage and deflect attention away from all the dead U.S. soldiers in
Iraq and his overall atrocious record on the war, jobs, the
environment and foreign policy, and center it all on divisive issues
of God-centric moral righteousness, like all those sicko gay people
trying to dignify their sinful love.

This is a president, after all, who truly believes he is doing God's
will by turning this country into the most lawless, internationally
loathed aggressor on the planet, something I'm sure is very reassuring
to those countless thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

Does it really matter anymore? After all, as any child can tell you,
politics has always been a wildly corrupt and slimy profession, valued
somewhere between professional wrestler and professional baby-seal
clubber on the moral and spiritual scale o' delicious karmic
significance.

And, yes, it must be noted that there isn't a U.S. president on record
who hasn't somehow deliberately mangled scientific data and covered up
important reports during his term in order to further favored
policies. Goes almost without saying.


But, as the Union of Concerned Scientists point out, never has the
oppression of fact been so systematic, so widespread, so repulsive as
that which Bush has wrought. Never has the abuse been so flagrant, the
border marking what's morally acceptable so shamelessly crossed.


Maybe you don't believe the hippie environmentalists who are always
spouting off about saving the whales and protecting the forests. Maybe
you like to hiss at and dismiss, say, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s
outstanding, powerfully researched articles in the recent issue of
Rolling Stone and the latest issue of The Nation that carefully
delineate just how Bush's enviro record is the worst in history, and
call Kennedy just another typical left-wing liberal. You wish to be
that small and boorish? Fine.

Not so easy, however, to dismiss a small army of nonpartisan,
internationally respected scientists as just more agenda-thick
political BS, as BushCo has done. To do so reeks of something far
beyond mere name calling and dumb party maneuvering. It reeks of sheer
heartlessness regarding the planet. It reeks of abuse. It reeks of
hate.

This, then, is the gist of the BushCo attack on the planet: a hate
crime. An intentional, ferocious dismantling of protections and
guidelines, a view that Mother Nature is nothing but a cheap resource
to be exploited, a giant oil can to be suckled, a hunk of toilet paper
for Dick Cheney to -- well, let's not imagine.

Look at it this way. It's like music videos. Over and over again,
endless droning shots of gyrating sweating booty-pumping faux-sexy
bodies pretending to writhe in bogus orgasmic bliss, video after video
and hour after hour where you watch and watch and go slowly numb and
say, Jesus with a skimpy thong and a spray bottle of baby oil, how
much further can they go?

How much more naked and sexist and overblown and abusive can they get
before they say oh screw it and just strip down and have sex with a
live chicken as 50 Cent downs a bottle of Crystal and grins
maniacally?

This is like the saturation level of BushCo. Something's gotta give,
you say. Surely some sort of ugly orgiastic critical mass has been
reached wherein Bush and his planet-reaming policies simply cannot go
any further without some sort of meltdown, some sort of massive
international cosmic recoil whereby we finally see the Bush admin for
what it is, quite possibly the most self-serving, egomaniacal cluster
of enviro thugs in modern history.

But with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, this sentiment goes
one step further -- this is not just hate for the planet, not merely a
blatant right-wing revulsion for those much-loathed intangible New
Age-y touchstones like earthly vibration, energy, true spiritual
connection and a deep veneration and sense of profound awe for the raw
divinity of nature.

This is more sinister, and more disturbing. BushCo's ugly rejection of
not merely the "liberal" environmental politicking but also of the
factual science of the natural world is, ultimately, a form of
self-loathing.

It is a snide and self-destructive rejection of the human-nature
connection, of the very real and very direct correlation between how
we treat our world and how we view ourselves, between what we choose
to celebrate/annihilate in nature and what we venerate/devastate in
own spirits. After all, the less regard you have for one, the less you
care about the other. Simple, really.

Look. We reflect the planet. The planet reflects us. And 60 out of 60
scientists agree: BushCo's time of reflecting nothing but cruel
blackness and abuse needs to come to an end, right now

John H February 27th 04 10:16 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?


Ah, yes. The unbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this unbiased group with all the intellectual integrity
of Harry Krause:


Union of Concerned Scientists

"Confused Scientists."
— S. Fred Singer, George Mason University professor and president of
the Science & Environmental Policy Project, in The Washington Times,
August 11, 2000

"The Union of Perturbed Scientists."
— Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg, March 9, 1999

"It’s more like the Union of Concerned Lawyers."
— Steven Milloy,
www.JunkScience.com, 1999

"Aptly named because they can find concerns about anything."
— Bruce Boller, Virginia Military Institute Department of Physics and
Astronomy, The Washington Times, July 7, 2002


Background
Committed to an “open-minded search for truth,” and armed with
“unrivaled scientific expertise,” the Union of Concerned Scientists
(UCS) “doesn’t say anything [it] can’t back up with solid evidence.”
At least, that’s what its fund-raising letters say. The reality is
quite different.

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.

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or
organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then they manipulate or
misconstrue the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken.
In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000
members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a
step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.”
Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent
disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved
“profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific
community.”

Like many environmental activist groups, UCS uses the twin motivators
of cheer and fear. A giggly Gwenyth Paltrow and a catty Cameron Diaz
headlined a series of short appeals about energy conservation that UCS
produced. The two mega-stars crow that they turn the water off while
brushing their teeth, switch off the light when they leave their
bedrooms, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees. “Its time for us to
band together and really make every effort to conserve our natural
resources,” chirps Diaz. That’s the sunny side.

But UCS is more adept at producing horror stories than chick flicks.
They are fear-mongers of the first order -- turning the sober science
of health and environmental safety into high drama for public
consumption. For example, UCS recently warned that by 2100 the U.S.
might suffer 50-80 million more cases of malaria every year if the
Senate fails to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Such racy statistics are
based on clumsy modeling of worst-case scenarios, and assume --
against all evidence of human behavior -- that no countermeasures
whatsoever would be employed. “Not considering factors such as local
control measures or health services,” in their own words. Of course,
you won’t find those caveats in the press release.

Genetically Modified Science

Among UCS’s many concerns, “the food you eat” is at the top of the
list. More than a million dollars went to its food program in 2001.
Genetically enhanced foods -- dubbed “Frankenfoods” by opponents --
have caused worldwide hysteria even though no reputable scientific
institution can find anything to be afraid of. But that doesn’t stop
UCS’s “experts” from playing cheerleader to these unfounded fears.

They warn that biotech foods could result in the “squandering of
valuable pest susceptibility genes,” “enhancement of the environment
for toxic fungi,” and the “creation of new or worse viruses.” They
scream about “Poisoned wildlife” and “new allergens in the food
supply.” Biotech foods, they claim, might “increase the levels of
toxic substances within plants,” “reduce the effectiveness of
antibiotics to fight disease,” “contaminate foods with high levels of
toxic metals,” “intensify weedy properties” and cause the “rapid
evolution of resistance to herbicides in weeds,” leading to
“superweeds.”

Rigorous scientific analysis led UCS to this list of horrors, right?
Wrong. That was merely a “‘brainstorming’ of potential harms.” So how
likely are any of these to occur? “Risk assessments can be
complicated,” UCS says, and pretty much leaves it at that. In other
words, they have absolutely no idea.

In contrast, more reputable authorities have a very good grasp of the
potential risks of genetically enhanced foods. The U.S. Environmental
protection Agency says that genetically enhanced corn “does not pose
risks to human health or to the environment.” The World Health
Organization says that biotech foods “are not likely to present risks
for human health” and observes that “no effects on human health have
been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general
population.” Even the European Union, which has gone out of its way to
stifle food technology for political reasons, notes: “The use of more
precise technology [in genetically enhanced crops] and the greater
regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional
plants and foods.”

The Food and Environment Program at UCS is headed up by Margaret
Mellon and her deputy Jane Rissler, both of whom hold Ph.Ds and have
held positions at prestigious universities. So what do a couple of
highly trained research scientists, armed with nothing but guesswork,
ideology and a million dollar budget, do? They fight biotech food
every step of the way.

Although UCS claims that it “does not support or oppose genetic
engineering per se,” Mellon and Rissler in fact have never met a GM
food they didn’t mistrust. That’s because they hold biotech foods to
an impossibly high standard.

In 1999, UCS joined the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum, and the Defenders of Wildlife, in petitioning the EPA for
strict regulation of corn modified to produce large amounts of the
bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin. Bt is a naturally occurring insect
poison that protects plants from pests like the European corn borer.
UCS’s letter was part of a major scare campaign to convince the public
that Bt corn posed a risk to the Monarch Butterfly.

Both the USDA and the EPA later concluded that Bt corn caused no harm
to the Monarch. This reinforced the findings of federal regulators who
had performed a comprehensive safety review of Bt corn before it was
allowed into the marketplace. UCS remains unconvinced, even though the
safest place for a Monarch larva to be is in a Bt cornfield. Rissler
argued there was “insufficient data” to make such a conclusion.

Precautionary Nonsense

Of course, “sufficient” data can never exist for zealots like Rissler.
She continued: “Do we assume the technology is safe… or do we prove
it? The scientist in me wants to prove it’s safe.” It’s impossible to
prove a negative, to absolutely demonstrate that there are no dangers
whatsoever for any given product. The scientist in her knows that too,
but she and her colleagues at UCS continue to be guided by the
“Precautionary Principle.” This misguided maxim argues that, based on
the fear that something harmful may possibly arise, we should opt for
technological paralysis.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized in 2000 that The Precautionary
Principle “is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trump
scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don’t
like.” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists because it
justifies their paranoia and serves to bludgeon technological
progress.

Martin Teitel, who runs another misnamed activist group called the
Council for Responsible Genetics, admitted as much in 2001.
“Politically,” Teitel said, “it’s difficult for me to go around saying
that I want to shut this science down, so it’s safer for me to say
something like, ‘It needs to be done safely before releasing it.’”
Requiring scientists to satisfy the Principle by proving a negative,
Teitel added, means that “they don’t get to do it period.”

It should come as no surprise that UCS joined Teitel’s organization
and other die-hard opponents of biotech foods in an activist coalition
called the Genetic Engineering Action Network. While acknowledging
that “we know of no generic harms associated with genetically
engineered organisms,” UCS consistently opposes their introduction to
the market on the basis of purely hypothetical risk.

Confronted with the real-world benefits of biotech foods, UCS simply
changes the subject to its anti-corporate, socialist leanings.
Rissler’s appearance on the PBS show Nova – on a program called
“Harvest of Fear” -- is a case in point. When the interviewer
suggested that “genetically modified crops are arguably much less
harmful to the environment” Rissler responded: “It depends on where
you want to compromise. There’s another issue here with corporate
control of the food supply.”

UCS’s knee-jerk reaction to biotech foods is matched only by its
animus towards agribusiness. A 1994 press release condemning FDA
approval of biotech foods complained that some of the data used by the
oversight agency was provided by private enterprises.

In her zeal to decry increased food production from the corporate
adoption of biotechnology, Mellon has argued that it’s “not clear that
more milk or pork is good.” And UCS supports a radical vision of
“sustainable agriculture.” That means no pesticides or herbicides; no
fertilizer (other than E.coli-rich manure); and eating only “locally
grown” produce. If it’s not clear under this plan where New York City
would get its rice or how Chicago would scrounge up any bananas,
there’s a reason for it. They wouldn’t.

Pigs, Chickens and Cows, Oh My!

Hogging It, a UCS report published in 2001, argues that the use of
antibiotics in farm animals could result in human diseases that are
resistant to conventional treatments. The report received a great deal
of press attention, and UCS is not afraid to brag about it. “We
developed the numbers that everyone uses when talking about… overuse
of antibiotics,” trumpets a fund-raising letter. But how did they go
about developing those numbers? “Rigorous scientific analysis”?
Hardly. While the livestock industry actually calculates the amounts
of antibiotics administered to farm animals using hard sales figures,
UCS guesses at average drug dosages and then multiplies by the total
number of animals. That’s “brainstorming.” Not science.

The real experts, like David Bell, coordinator of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s anti-microbial resistance programs,
aren’t impressed by Hogging It. Interestingly, UCS admits the weakness
of its evidence. The executive summary of Hogging It complains about a
“gaping chasm” in the data. Nevertheless, the authors are proud to
produce the “first transparent estimate” of livestock antibiotic use
in America.

Estimate? That’s right. “The numbers everyone uses” are just
estimates. Moreover, UCS measures antibiotic usage in total tonnage.
But is that relevant in any way? UCS concedes that it’s not. The
activist group wants the FDA to track antibiotic usage by “type,”
since most antibiotics used in animals are unlike those used in
humans.

Consumer Reports quotes Margaret Mellon saying, “We know nothing. We
are flying blind.” No wonder the American Veterinary Medical
Association and the Coalition for Animal Health also reject Hogging
It’s findings. But none of that stops UCS from scaring the wits out of
the public. Mellon warns of an “era where untreatable infectious
diseases are regrettably commonplace.” That might be worth getting
“Concerned” about, if only it were based on good science.


Address 2 Brattle Square
Cambridge, MA 02238
Phone 617-547-5552
Fax 617-864-9405
Email
Website
www.ucsusa.org www.actgreen.com
www.ucsaction.org www.keepantibioticsworking.com



verview otivation lack Eye
inancials onnections ews



Officers & Other Supporters

Program Director, Food and Environment Margaret Mellon Food &
Environment Director, Union of Concerned Scientists; Advisory Board
member, Center for Food Safety; former program director, Environmental
Law Institute; co-author, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops

Deputy Director & Senior Staff Scientist Jane Rissler Deputy
Director & Senior Staff Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists;
media “expert,” Environmental Media Services; former staff scientist,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; co-author, The Ecological Risks
of Engineered Crops

Board Member Peter A. Bradford Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; former chair, New York Public Service Commission; former
chair, Maine Public Utilities Commission; former member, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission

Board Member Thomas Eisner Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Professor of Chemical Ecology, Cornell University; former
chair, Endangered Species Coalition; former board member, National
Audubon Society; former scientific council member, Nature Conservancy

Prog. Dir. & Sr. Scientist, Global Environment Peter C. Frumhoff
Global Resources Program Director & Senior Scientist, Union of
Concerned Scientists; former assistant research scientist, Department
of Zoology, the University of Maryland

Board Member Richard L. Garwin Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; former
member, the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee

Chairman & co-founder Kurt Gottfried Chairman of the Board and
co-founder, Union of Concerned Scientists; professor emeritus of
physics, Cornell University; member, Council on Foreign Relations;
author, Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals; co-author, Concepts of
Particle Physics

Board Member Geoffrey Heal Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; professor of Public Policy & Corporate Responsibility,
Columbia University Graduate School of Business; author, Nature and
the Marketplace; former managing editor, The Review of Economic
Studies

Board Member James S. Hoyte Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Associate Vice President for Equal Opportunity Programs,
Environmental Sciences lecturer & Co- Director, Working Group on
Environmental Justice, Harvard University

Executive Director Kevin Knobloch Executive Director, Union of
Concerned Scientists; director, CERES; former Director of Conservation
Programs, Boston Appalachian Mountain Club; former Leg. Dir., U.S.
Sen. Timothy Wirth (D-CO); former Leg. Asst. & Press Sec., U.S. Rep.
Ted Weiss (D-NY)

Director of Government Relations Alden Meyer Dir. of Government
Relations, Union of Concerned Scientists; chair, US Climate Action
Network; Executive Director, League of Conservation Voters; former
dir., Environmental Action; former dir., Connecticut Citizens Action
Group

Board Member Stuart Pimm Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University
of Tennessee; author, The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the
Conservation of Species and Communities

President Howard Ris President & former Exec. Dir., Union of
Concerned Scientists; member, (Clinton Administration’s) Council on
Sustainable Dev.; former prog. dir., New England River Basins
Commission; former sr. policy analyst, Massachusetts Exec. Office of
Env. Affairs

Vice Chair Adele Smith Simmons Vice Chair, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Sr. Associate, Univ. of Chicago Ctr. for Int’l Studies;
former president, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; former
president, Hampshire College; former professor & dean, Princeton &
Tufts Universities

Board Member Nancy Stephens Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; CA appointee, Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory Board;
executive board member, Earth Communications Office; advisory board
member, the Liberty Hill Foundation; board member, Americans for a
Safe Future

Board Member Thomas Stone Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Chairman & CEO, Stone Capital Group; board member, Ravinia
Festival Association; board member, Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith; board member, Chicago Youth Symphony Orchestra

Board Member Ellyn R. Weiss Board member & former general
counsel, Union of Concerned Scientists; retired partner, Foley, Hoag &
Eliot; former partner, Harmon & Weiss LLP; former Assistant
Massachusetts Attorney General for Environmental Protection


John H

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

John H February 27th 04 10:18 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

As if we needed more FACTUAL proof that Bush is nothing short of a
lying simpleton:


It is courteous to add the letters 'OT' to off-topic posts when
initiating same.

John H

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

Doug Kanter February 27th 04 10:51 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"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.



Tuuk February 28th 04 12:06 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
LOL

Asskisser,, you are the limit,,,

Why should I have to argue with you when you put your foot in your mouth on
your own. You did this on purpose. Nobody can be this stupid. Are you having
fun here now? You trying to make a joke?
LoL,, come on there asskisser,,, give the head a shake....





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
As if we needed more FACTUAL proof that Bush is nothing short of a
lying simpleton:

Mother Nature, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BushCo just really, really
loathes this planet

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 27, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------




Today's question: What do you get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists, 20 Nobel Laureates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed squarely at BushCo's thoroughly atrocious record of
cover-ups and obfuscations and outright lies regarding the health of
the planet?

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

If you answered, "Why, you get even more painful polyps of sadness and
disgust on your soul due to the BushCo onslaught," consider yourself
among the millions who are right now rather horrified and appalled and
who are wondering just what sort of human -- not what sort of
politician, mind you, not what sort of power broker, not what sort of
failed Texas oilman corporate lackey -- but what sort of human being
you have to be to enact such insidious ongoing planet-gouging
legislation, smirking and shrugging all the way.

It is not an easy one to answer, as you can only wonder what has gone
so horribly wrong, what sort of line has been crossed so that not even
the basic dignity of the planet, not even a modicum of respect for it,
is the slightest factor anymore in modern American right-wing
politics. What, too extreme? Hardly.

The story about the scientist's report is here. It was broadcast over
many major media channels, somewhat loud and mostly clear, though most
media was far more eager to bury it under all those more hotly
controversial pics of happy gay people smooching on the steps of
S.F.'s city hall than they were to trumpet the dire claims of a bunch
of boring genius scientists.

Such is the national priority. After all, no one wants to hear how
badly we've been duped by this administration, again. Given the
nonexistent WMDs and the complete lack of Iraqi nukes and the bogus
wars and manufactured fear and a galling budget deficit and nearly 3
million lost jobs and a raft of BushCo lies so thick you need a
jackhammer to see some light, no one wants to know that even the
world's top scientists are disgusted with our nation's leadership.

We can, after all, take only so much abuse, can be only so karmically
and ideologically hammered, before we become so utterly exhausted that
we just stop caring.

And, in fact, BushCo would love nothing more than to cripple our
outrage and deflect attention away from all the dead U.S. soldiers in
Iraq and his overall atrocious record on the war, jobs, the
environment and foreign policy, and center it all on divisive issues
of God-centric moral righteousness, like all those sicko gay people
trying to dignify their sinful love.

This is a president, after all, who truly believes he is doing God's
will by turning this country into the most lawless, internationally
loathed aggressor on the planet, something I'm sure is very reassuring
to those countless thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

Does it really matter anymore? After all, as any child can tell you,
politics has always been a wildly corrupt and slimy profession, valued
somewhere between professional wrestler and professional baby-seal
clubber on the moral and spiritual scale o' delicious karmic
significance.

And, yes, it must be noted that there isn't a U.S. president on record
who hasn't somehow deliberately mangled scientific data and covered up
important reports during his term in order to further favored
policies. Goes almost without saying.


But, as the Union of Concerned Scientists point out, never has the
oppression of fact been so systematic, so widespread, so repulsive as
that which Bush has wrought. Never has the abuse been so flagrant, the
border marking what's morally acceptable so shamelessly crossed.


Maybe you don't believe the hippie environmentalists who are always
spouting off about saving the whales and protecting the forests. Maybe
you like to hiss at and dismiss, say, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s
outstanding, powerfully researched articles in the recent issue of
Rolling Stone and the latest issue of The Nation that carefully
delineate just how Bush's enviro record is the worst in history, and
call Kennedy just another typical left-wing liberal. You wish to be
that small and boorish? Fine.

Not so easy, however, to dismiss a small army of nonpartisan,
internationally respected scientists as just more agenda-thick
political BS, as BushCo has done. To do so reeks of something far
beyond mere name calling and dumb party maneuvering. It reeks of sheer
heartlessness regarding the planet. It reeks of abuse. It reeks of
hate.

This, then, is the gist of the BushCo attack on the planet: a hate
crime. An intentional, ferocious dismantling of protections and
guidelines, a view that Mother Nature is nothing but a cheap resource
to be exploited, a giant oil can to be suckled, a hunk of toilet paper
for Dick Cheney to -- well, let's not imagine.

Look at it this way. It's like music videos. Over and over again,
endless droning shots of gyrating sweating booty-pumping faux-sexy
bodies pretending to writhe in bogus orgasmic bliss, video after video
and hour after hour where you watch and watch and go slowly numb and
say, Jesus with a skimpy thong and a spray bottle of baby oil, how
much further can they go?

How much more naked and sexist and overblown and abusive can they get
before they say oh screw it and just strip down and have sex with a
live chicken as 50 Cent downs a bottle of Crystal and grins
maniacally?

This is like the saturation level of BushCo. Something's gotta give,
you say. Surely some sort of ugly orgiastic critical mass has been
reached wherein Bush and his planet-reaming policies simply cannot go
any further without some sort of meltdown, some sort of massive
international cosmic recoil whereby we finally see the Bush admin for
what it is, quite possibly the most self-serving, egomaniacal cluster
of enviro thugs in modern history.

But with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, this sentiment goes
one step further -- this is not just hate for the planet, not merely a
blatant right-wing revulsion for those much-loathed intangible New
Age-y touchstones like earthly vibration, energy, true spiritual
connection and a deep veneration and sense of profound awe for the raw
divinity of nature.

This is more sinister, and more disturbing. BushCo's ugly rejection of
not merely the "liberal" environmental politicking but also of the
factual science of the natural world is, ultimately, a form of
self-loathing.

It is a snide and self-destructive rejection of the human-nature
connection, of the very real and very direct correlation between how
we treat our world and how we view ourselves, between what we choose
to celebrate/annihilate in nature and what we venerate/devastate in
own spirits. After all, the less regard you have for one, the less you
care about the other. Simple, really.

Look. We reflect the planet. The planet reflects us. And 60 out of 60
scientists agree: BushCo's time of reflecting nothing but cruel
blackness and abuse needs to come to an end, right now




K. Smith February 28th 04 07:57 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
basskisser wrote:
As if we needed more FACTUAL proof that Bush is nothing short of a
lying simpleton:

Mother Nature, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BushCo just really, really
loathes this planet

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 27, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Today's question: What do you get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists,


All feeding at the taxpayers' trough.

20 Nobel Laureates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed squarely at BushCo's thoroughly atrocious record of
cover-ups and obfuscations and outright lies regarding the health of
the planet?


Gee a political difference of opinion dressed up as science??? Oh well
I guess they know whats best, after all they told us in the 60s the
world would starve by the 80s, got lots of grants & BS claiming "proof"
of that to.


What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,


By who??? Other tax bludgers & simpletons like you & Harry?? come on
they're a joke.

nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists,


What rec boats has a comedy hour now?? non partisan "union"" a hoot K I
thought you were serious & yes that was a good one hahahaha:-)

go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public


No one has misled anyone, not a sole, merely has presented the counter
views.

or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact

Hey you're a funny bugger asskisser after all, "fact" what "fact" global
warming?? it's BS & nothing more no more so than the earth has done many
times before.

and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?


OK so look out Robin Williams you've arrived!!!! So other scientists
have different views that's all & like most fortune tellers the future
is easy to predict because when it arrives these tax payer funded
bludgers are hopefully dead, the sooner the better!!!


If you answered, "Why, you get even more painful polyps of sadness and
disgust on your soul due to the BushCo onslaught," consider yourself
among the millions who are right now rather horrified and appalled and
who are wondering just what sort of human -- not what sort of
politician, mind you, not what sort of power broker, not what sort of
failed Texas oilman corporate lackey -- but what sort of human being
you have to be to enact such insidious ongoing planet-gouging
legislation, smirking and shrugging all the way.


Certainly nonpartisan comment here & he's more successful in life than
all of them stacked on top of each other, (which they often a-))

Let's see made it in business more so than anyone here, was elected the
leader of the free world by the US population, saved the US & western
world from terrorism, is about to save us from economic meltdown once
he's re-elected & takes the axe to you, jps & harry all bludgers on the
public purse!!


It is not an easy one to answer, as you can only wonder what has gone
so horribly wrong, what sort of line has been crossed so that not even
the basic dignity of the planet, not even a modicum of respect for it,
is the slightest factor anymore in modern American right-wing
politics. What, too extreme? Hardly.


A joke a fat joke

The story about the scientist's report is here. It was broadcast over
many major media channels, somewhat loud and mostly clear, though most
media was far more eager to bury it under all those more hotly
controversial pics of happy gay people smooching on the steps of
S.F.'s city hall than they were to trumpet the dire claims of a bunch
of boring genius scientists.

Such is the national priority. After all, no one wants to hear how
badly we've been duped by this administration, again. Given the
nonexistent WMDs and the complete lack of Iraqi nukes and the bogus
wars and manufactured fear and a galling budget deficit and nearly 3
million lost jobs and a raft of BushCo lies so thick you need a
jackhammer to see some light, no one wants to know that even the
world's top scientists are disgusted with our nation's leadership.

We can, after all, take only so much abuse, can be only so karmically
and ideologically hammered, before we become so utterly exhausted that
we just stop caring.

And, in fact, BushCo would love nothing more than to cripple our
outrage and deflect attention away from all the dead U.S. soldiers in
Iraq and his overall atrocious record on the war, jobs, the
environment and foreign policy, and center it all on divisive issues
of God-centric moral righteousness, like all those sicko gay people
trying to dignify their sinful love.

This is a president, after all, who truly believes he is doing God's
will by turning this country into the most lawless, internationally
loathed aggressor on the planet, something I'm sure is very reassuring
to those countless thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

Does it really matter anymore? After all, as any child can tell you,
politics has always been a wildly corrupt and slimy profession, valued
somewhere between professional wrestler and professional baby-seal
clubber on the moral and spiritual scale o' delicious karmic
significance.

And, yes, it must be noted that there isn't a U.S. president on record
who hasn't somehow deliberately mangled scientific data and covered up
important reports during his term in order to further favored
policies. Goes almost without saying.


But, as the Union of Concerned Scientists point out, never has the
oppression of fact been so systematic, so widespread, so repulsive as
that which Bush has wrought. Never has the abuse been so flagrant, the
border marking what's morally acceptable so shamelessly crossed.


Maybe you don't believe the hippie environmentalists who are always
spouting off about saving the whales and protecting the forests. Maybe
you like to hiss at and dismiss, say, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s
outstanding, powerfully researched articles in the recent issue of
Rolling Stone and the latest issue of The Nation that carefully
delineate just how Bush's enviro record is the worst in history, and
call Kennedy just another typical left-wing liberal. You wish to be
that small and boorish? Fine.

Not so easy, however, to dismiss a small army of nonpartisan,
internationally respected scientists as just more agenda-thick
political BS, as BushCo has done. To do so reeks of something far
beyond mere name calling and dumb party maneuvering. It reeks of sheer
heartlessness regarding the planet. It reeks of abuse. It reeks of
hate.

This, then, is the gist of the BushCo attack on the planet: a hate
crime. An intentional, ferocious dismantling of protections and
guidelines, a view that Mother Nature is nothing but a cheap resource
to be exploited, a giant oil can to be suckled, a hunk of toilet paper
for Dick Cheney to -- well, let's not imagine.

Look at it this way. It's like music videos. Over and over again,
endless droning shots of gyrating sweating booty-pumping faux-sexy
bodies pretending to writhe in bogus orgasmic bliss, video after video
and hour after hour where you watch and watch and go slowly numb and
say, Jesus with a skimpy thong and a spray bottle of baby oil, how
much further can they go?

How much more naked and sexist and overblown and abusive can they get
before they say oh screw it and just strip down and have sex with a
live chicken as 50 Cent downs a bottle of Crystal and grins
maniacally?

This is like the saturation level of BushCo. Something's gotta give,
you say. Surely some sort of ugly orgiastic critical mass has been
reached wherein Bush and his planet-reaming policies simply cannot go
any further without some sort of meltdown, some sort of massive
international cosmic recoil whereby we finally see the Bush admin for
what it is, quite possibly the most self-serving, egomaniacal cluster
of enviro thugs in modern history.

But with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, this sentiment goes
one step further -- this is not just hate for the planet, not merely a
blatant right-wing revulsion for those much-loathed intangible New
Age-y touchstones like earthly vibration, energy, true spiritual
connection and a deep veneration and sense of profound awe for the raw
divinity of nature.

This is more sinister, and more disturbing. BushCo's ugly rejection of
not merely the "liberal" environmental politicking but also of the
factual science of the natural world is, ultimately, a form of
self-loathing.

It is a snide and self-destructive rejection of the human-nature
connection, of the very real and very direct correlation between how
we treat our world and how we view ourselves, between what we choose
to celebrate/annihilate in nature and what we venerate/devastate in
own spirits. After all, the less regard you have for one, the less you
care about the other. Simple, really.

Look. We reflect the planet. The planet reflects us. And 60 out of 60
scientists agree: BushCo's time of reflecting nothing but cruel
blackness and abuse needs to come to an end, right now



what absolute crap just more lies from the union left.

K

I do like the way harry has created a new person mad dog dave, he meets
him then hey the new person says harry is real, a lie person to support
the NG liar sick & certainly a dangerous puppy!!!

K





John H February 28th 04 01:57 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
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!

Tuuk February 28th 04 02:44 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

Real intelligent there scarry harry,,,, your a real class act.







"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
K. Smith wrote:


Gee a political difference of opinion dressed up as science??? Oh well
I guess they know whats best, after all they told us in the 60s the
world would starve by the 80s, got lots of grants & BS claiming "proof"
of that to.


Speaking of "proof," is gin your favorite?




What rec boats has a comedy hour now?? non partisan "union"" a hoot K I
thought you were serious & yes that was a good one hahahaha:-)


Ah, yes...English as one's fifth language...



No one has misled anyone, not a sole, merely has presented the counter
views.


Would that be a leather sole or a filet of sole?


Heed back to the sauce, Ms. Smith. It's your only solace, and you
probably have a use for the bottle when it is empty.




John H February 29th 04 01:57 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

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

Joe Parsons February 29th 04 06:10 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.


John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons


Calif Bill February 29th 04 09:14 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.


Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system

used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other

than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says that

the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

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




JGK February 29th 04 11:41 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Today's question: What do you get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists, 20 Nobel Laureates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed squarely at BushCo's thoroughly atrocious record of
cover-ups and obfuscations and outright lies regarding the health of
the planet?

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

You would get bad science, with these same Scientists trying to protect
their grants.



Bert Robbins March 1st 04 12:44 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.


Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



John H March 1st 04 02:22 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.


John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons


Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H

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

Harry Krause March 1st 04 02:23 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
John H wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:10:27 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:57:07 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.


John, do you believe this approach is not used by the other extreme, as well?

Joe Parsons


Yes, but not to that extreme.

John H



Yeah, sure...

For a cheap laugh:

http://www.hauntedmansion.info/bushin41point2.htm

John H March 1st 04 02:24 AM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 20:14:33 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Pollution Credits"


Thanks, Calif. I'll look it up and see what I can learn.

John H

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

basskisser March 1st 04 02:26 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
John H wrote in message . ..
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?


Ah, yes. The unbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this unbiased group with all the intellectual integrity
of Harry Krause:



John H


John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Doug Kanter March 1st 04 03:51 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
Thanks. That's why I couldn't find links. Busy here....links for John will
arrive later, after I strangle the telephone. Friggin' customers keep
interrupting me with business.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:21:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Really? OK: In the news, you'll hear discussions of the voucher system

used
by companies which pollute. Have you ever heard a single opinion (other

than
from the companies which feed at that particular trough) which says

that
the
system promotes environmental responsibility?


Doug, you stated, "...1) Bush at one extreme: Damage as much as
possible. Allow polluters like coal-burning power plants to have free
reign..."

I disagreed with that statement. I think your exaggeration is far
beyond the facts. I will grant that there will always be 'more' that
can be done for the environment, regardless of who is in power.

Your statement was designed to be inflammatory, not to present the
truth. I believe that this approach is used too often by some of the
more liberal leaning folks in the NG.

PS. I have heard of the 'vouchers' to which you refer, but could not
quickly find good information on them. Do you have a site I could
refer to? Thanks.

John H

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






Calif Bill March 1st 04 06:09 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.


Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill



Doug Kanter March 1st 04 09:09 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
It makes plenty of sense if you run a company that pollutes plenty and is
rolling in cash. You buy your way out of the problem. This plan won't last
much longer, though, in my opinion. I think the country, as a whole, is
about to wake up from a long slumber.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
"Pollution Credits" is the proper name.


Or, "Redistrubution of Wealth!"



Nope. Is redistribution of pollution. Does not really make sense. A
company can buy an old clunker and scrap it and gets xx pollution credit.
Bill





John H March 1st 04 10:48 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On 1 Mar 2004 05:26:30 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800,
(basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?


Ah, yes. The unbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this unbiased group with all the intellectual integrity
of Harry Krause:



John H


John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H

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

Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 03:22 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H


John, even if 1000 scientists use what they all consider "valid methods" to
come to a variety of conclusions, their conclusions are still more accurate
than stating that a hack politician's environmental policies are okie dokie,
just because you (a non-scientist) happen to think so. This is especially
true if you are lacking knowledge about certain aspects of his policies.

Speaking of knowledge, here is a link to a brief description of how
pollution credits work. It's absolutely biased, but completely accurate. You
can find plenty of others by searching for "pollution credits".

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...0/credits.html



John H March 2nd 04 04:10 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:22:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H


John, even if 1000 scientists use what they all consider "valid methods" to
come to a variety of conclusions, their conclusions are still more accurate
than stating that a hack politician's environmental policies are okie dokie,
just because you (a non-scientist) happen to think so. This is especially
true if you are lacking knowledge about certain aspects of his policies.

Speaking of knowledge, here is a link to a brief description of how
pollution credits work. It's absolutely biased, but completely accurate. You
can find plenty of others by searching for "pollution credits".

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...0/credits.html


Did I state that Bush's environmental policies were okie dokie, or
words to that effect? I don't think so.

My post was in response to b'asskissers assertion that by virtue of
their title, 'scientists', these people couldn't be biased.

John H

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

Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 05:05 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:22:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H


John, even if 1000 scientists use what they all consider "valid methods"

to
come to a variety of conclusions, their conclusions are still more

accurate
than stating that a hack politician's environmental policies are okie

dokie,
just because you (a non-scientist) happen to think so. This is especially
true if you are lacking knowledge about certain aspects of his policies.

Speaking of knowledge, here is a link to a brief description of how
pollution credits work. It's absolutely biased, but completely accurate.

You
can find plenty of others by searching for "pollution credits".

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...0/credits.html


Did I state that Bush's environmental policies were okie dokie, or
words to that effect? I don't think so.

My post was in response to b'asskissers assertion that by virtue of
their title, 'scientists', these people couldn't be biased.

John H


Earlier, you said "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."
You and I are defining "extremes" differently. I consider it extreme to
comment on the science of pollution and air/water quality if you've admitted
knowing nothing about the aspect on which you are commenting.



Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 05:30 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
......and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

....and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies



John H March 2nd 04 06:15 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:05:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:22:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H

John, even if 1000 scientists use what they all consider "valid methods"

to
come to a variety of conclusions, their conclusions are still more

accurate
than stating that a hack politician's environmental policies are okie

dokie,
just because you (a non-scientist) happen to think so. This is especially
true if you are lacking knowledge about certain aspects of his policies.

Speaking of knowledge, here is a link to a brief description of how
pollution credits work. It's absolutely biased, but completely accurate.

You
can find plenty of others by searching for "pollution credits".

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...0/credits.html


Did I state that Bush's environmental policies were okie dokie, or
words to that effect? I don't think so.

My post was in response to b'asskissers assertion that by virtue of
their title, 'scientists', these people couldn't be biased.

John H


Earlier, you said "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."
You and I are defining "extremes" differently. I consider it extreme to
comment on the science of pollution and air/water quality if you've admitted
knowing nothing about the aspect on which you are commenting.


I believe I indicated a lack of knowledge about, "...voucher system
used by companies which pollute." I've never stated I knew nothing of
the science of pollution or air/water quality. You seem to be
inferring a lot. By disagreeing with the statement that Bush's policy
is to "damage as much as possible" I am not professing a degree of
knowledge.

I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H

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

John H March 2nd 04 06:16 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

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

John H March 2nd 04 06:25 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


Thanks for the link. It was interesting. I read about this latest in
the paper yesterday, and wasn't thrilled. I'm hoping to hear more on
the issue because I'm not too trustful of the Wash. Post, or NPR for
that matter.

Bush's environmental actions are one of the big negatives I find with
the administration.

John H

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

Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 06:26 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...


I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H


Do the words "Love Canal" ring a bell? You'll be seeing more of those soon
if your leader has his way.



Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 06:26 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H


John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)



Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 06:35 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


Thanks for the link. It was interesting. I read about this latest in
the paper yesterday, and wasn't thrilled. I'm hoping to hear more on
the issue because I'm not too trustful of the Wash. Post, or NPR for
that matter.

Bush's environmental actions are one of the big negatives I find with
the administration.

John H


Here comes the age-old question: Who *would* you trust for more information
on this particular segment of voters? How about your local chapter of Trout
Unlimited? You've got a pretty active bunch of people in your area, if the
book "Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis" is any indication.



John H March 2nd 04 06:35 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:26:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H


Do the words "Love Canal" ring a bell? You'll be seeing more of those soon
if your leader has his way.

Truman was a Democrat.

John H

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

John H March 2nd 04 06:37 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:26:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H


John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H

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

Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 06:41 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:26:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H


Do the words "Love Canal" ring a bell? You'll be seeing more of those

soon
if your leader has his way.

Truman was a Democrat.

John H


I knew you were gonna say that. :-) I mentioned Love Canal as an example of
what happens when industry has no constraints, not as a suggestion that the
president at the time was connected with it. We had an "almost" occur here
in Rochester last year, and a couple of "definites" in the past 20 years,
and the perps are claiming it's not their job to clean up the messes they
made. Matter of fact, General Electric is still bitching about paying for
cleanup efforts in the Hudson River. They've admitted to dumping toxins, but
they don't think they should be held accountable. WTF?

As far as politicians, we have a Republican governor who I will vote for as
many times as he runs because his environmental record is excellent. He
sometimes wears white socks with dark suits, but I can overlook that.



Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 06:45 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...

My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H


John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H


Yeah. Right.



basskisser March 2nd 04 09:03 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?


Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

John H

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


Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 09:51 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?


Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.


I'm not playing both sides here, but in fact, most good science IS biased.
Most research begins with a theory and experiments are designed around that
theory. This doesn't detract from the value of the research, especially if
other scientists attack the problem from another angle eventually, which
they usually do.

With regard to pollution, you don't hear many (if any) scientists refuting
results which have been measured repeatedly for the past 20 years. Acid rain
is a perfect example. At this point in history, only idiots don't believe
that it wrecks bodies of water.



John H March 2nd 04 10:00 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:45:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H


Yeah. Right.

Honest!
John H

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

John H March 2nd 04 10:05 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
On 2 Mar 2004 12:03:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message
John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.


Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?


Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

John H

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


Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

John H

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

Doug Kanter March 2nd 04 10:10 PM

And the Bush lies just keep on coming
 
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:45:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H


Yeah. Right.

Honest!


Why??? The has no attractive qualities. Were you unimpressed with the other
choices?




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com