Anybody find John Stoessel's ABC News Special worthy of comment or criticism? Ha!! ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Is he really that blatantly stupid, patronizing and condescending? Not to mention just such an @ss?? I guess that's his gimic. rH ------------------ visit: groovehouse.org [This message has been edited by rockHEAD (edited June 29, 2001).]
Well, rH, what about all the scientific experts he interviewed? Are they all stupid, too? Stoessel is the best!! He exploded the silly desparate exageration that the extreme environmentalists trump-up just to keep themselves in business. I'm not saying that there is nothing to be cautious about, but the facts don't always align with the "truth that we are told" and there is no preponderance of opinion on almost all of these matters-- especially those opinions that would align with the more radical views. News organizations are gullible (they don't report, they relay) or sensational (news is a ratings war zone). Most environmentalists that get airtime or column inches are extreme in their distortions. These kids coming up may be the most disaffected; we are imprinting upon them that natural decimation is in their future. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Give ME a break. What bothers me is op ed masquerading in news clothing. I can't trust any guy who went out and reported scientific results on organic foods that didn't exist, which is exactly what Stossel did last year. He also used a researcher paid by a chemical company as his scientific reference for that story and attempted to present him as an "unbiased researcher." How this guy kept his job after blatantly lying and risking a HUGE lawsuit for his company is absolutely unreal. I don't care if he is conservative, liberal or moderate, if you or I had conjoured up the misrepresentations he did and left our companies vulnerable to litigation and libel, we'd be out on our collective asses. As for his report on the environment, I think a favorable comparison is antibiotic medication. Years ago, penicillin signaled a tremendous breakthrough in medicine. Unfortunately, we got greedy and began prescribing them far to often. As a result, pathogens have mutated and many of them no longer respond to antibiotics as they once did. It also created a host of problems in people because antibiotics also kill of bacteria that live in a symbiotic (and very beneficial) relationship with our bodies. Some studies have found a direct link between antibiotics and chronic intestinal dysfunction for example. There is a serious growing concern in the medical community (and an incredibly dedicated effort by researchers) that antibiotics will be completely ineffective in 20 to 30 years. It will be like going back to the early part of last century where the flu virus represented one of the single greatest threats to human life. My grandfather, probably the most conservative person I've ever known, said that there is a limit to not only what we CAN do to the world, but also what we SHOULD do. By the way... He exploded the silly desparate exageration that the extreme environmentalists trump-up just to keep themselves in business. What business? You think there is more money in being a "professional environmentalist" than being a chemical industry scientist? I would be willing to wager that there is far more grant money available to sceintists who choose to take on environmentalists than there is for those who join them. Who has more to gain by convincing us one way or another? You think the Sierra Club somehow has billions of dollars to gain from misrepresenting science? By FAR, the chemical industry has the most to gain in terms of dollars and they already have the power on their side. I don't want to live off of the land or go back to nature, but there has to be a balance between providing long-lasting protection for ourselves and our environment and bringing us further convenience. ------------------ How the hell should I know why God would allow the Holocaust. I don't even know how the electric can opener works. - from Hannah and Her Sisters
