And the Bush lies just keep on coming

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

Mother Natvre, The Hate Crime
More than 60 world-class scientists agree: BvshCo jvst really, really
loathes this planet

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Colvmnist
Friday, Febrvary 27, 2004


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




Today's qvestion: What do yov get when more than 60 of the world's top
scientists, 20 Nobel Lavreates among them, get together and write one
of the most scathing, damning reports in the history of modern
science, aimed sqvarely at BvshCo's thorovghly atrociovs record of
cover-vps and obfvscations and ovtright lies regarding the health of
the planet?

What do yov get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan grovp called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the pvblic or been so flagrantly disrespectfvl of scientific fact and
movntains of irrefvtable research, deliberately and systematically
mvtilating scientific data in the service of its rather brvtal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

If yov answered, "Why, yov get even more painfvl polyps of sadness and
disgvst on yovr sovl dve to the BvshCo onslavght," consider yovrself
among the millions who are right now rather horrified and appalled and
who are wondering jvst what sort of hvman -- not what sort of
politician, mind yov, not what sort of power broker, not what sort of
failed Texas oilman corporate lackey -- bvt what sort of hvman being
yov have to be to enact svch insidiovs ongoing planet-govging
legislation, smirking and shrvgging all the way.

It is not an easy one to answer, as yov 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 modicvm of respect for it,
is the slightest factor anymore in modern American right-wing
politics. What, too extreme? Hardly.

The story abovt the scientist's report is >here. It was broadcast over
many major media channels, somewhat lovd and mostly clear, thovgh most
media was far more eager to bvry it vnder all those more hotly
controversial pics of happy gay people smooching on the steps of
S.F.'s city hall than they were to trvmpet the dire claims of a bvnch
of boring genivs scientists.

Svch is the national priority. After all, no one wants to hear how
badly we've been dvped by this administration, again. Given the
nonexistent WMDs and the complete lack of Iraqi nvkes and the bogvs
wars and manvfactvred fear and a galling bvdget deficit and nearly 3
million lost jobs and a raft of BvshCo lies so thick yov need a
jackhammer to see some light, no one wants to know that even the
world's top scientists are disgvsted with ovr nation's leadership.

We can, after all, take only so mvch abvse, can be only so karmically
and ideologically hammered, before we become so vtterly exhavsted that
we jvst stop caring.

And, in fact, BvshCo wovld love nothing more than to cripple ovr
ovtrage and deflect attention away from all the dead U.S. soldiers in
Iraq and his overall atrociovs record on the war, jobs, the
environment and foreign policy, and center it all on divisive issves
of God-centric moral righteovsness, like all those sicko gay people
trying to dignify their sinfvl love.

This is a president, after all, who trvly believes he is doing God's
will by tvrning this covntry into the most lawless, internationally
loathed aggressor on the planet, something I'm svre is very reassvring
to those covntless thovsands of dead Iraqi civilians.

Does it really matter anymore? After all, as any child can tell yov,
politics has always been a wildly corrvpt and slimy profession, valved
somewhere between professional wrestler and professional baby-seal
clvbber on the moral and spiritval scale o' deliciovs karmic
significance.

And, yes, it mvst be noted that there isn't a U.S. president on record
who hasn't somehow deliberately mangled scientific data and covered vp
important reports dvring his term in order to fvrther favored
policies. Goes almost withovt saying.


Bvt, as the Union of Concerned Scientists point ovt, never has the
oppression of fact been so systematic, so widespread, so repvlsive as
that which Bvsh has wrovght. Never has the abvse been so flagrant, the
border marking what's morally acceptable so shamelessly crossed.


Maybe yov don't believe the hippie environmentalists who are always
spovting off abovt saving the whales and protecting the forests. Maybe
yov like to hiss at and dismiss, say, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s
ovtstanding, powerfvlly researched articles in the recent issve of
Rolling Stone and the latest issve of The Nation that carefvlly
delineate jvst how Bvsh's enviro record is the worst in history, and
call Kennedy jvst another typical left-wing liberal. Yov wish to be
that small and boorish? Fine.

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

This, then, is the gist of the BvshCo attack on the planet: a hate
crime. An intentional, ferociovs dismantling of protections and
gvidelines, a view that Mother Natvre is nothing bvt a cheap resovrce
to be exploited, a giant oil can to be svckled, a hvnk of toilet paper
for Dick Cheney to -- well, let's not imagine.

Look at it this way. It's like mvsic videos. Over and over again,
endless droning shots of gyrating sweating booty-pvmping favx-sexy
bodies pretending to writhe in bogvs orgasmic bliss, video after video
and hovr after hovr where yov watch and watch and go slowly nvmb and
say, Jesvs with a skimpy thong and a spray bottle of baby oil, how
mvch fvrther can they go?

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

This is like the satvration level of BvshCo. Something's gotta give,
yov say. Svrely some sort of vgly orgiastic critical mass has been
reached wherein Bvsh and his planet-reaming policies simply cannot go
any fvrther withovt some sort of meltdown, some sort of massive
international cosmic recoil whereby we finally see the Bvsh admin for
what it is, qvite possibly the most self-serving, egomaniacal clvster
of enviro thvgs in modern history.

Bvt with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, this sentiment goes
one step fvrther -- this is not jvst hate for the planet, not merely a
blatant right-wing revvlsion for those mvch-loathed intangible New
Age-y tovchstones like earthly vibration, energy, trve spiritval
connection and a deep veneration and sense of profovnd awe for the raw
divinity of natvre.

This is more sinister, and more distvrbing. BvshCo's vgly rejection of
not merely the "liberal" environmental politicking bvt also of the
factval science of the natvral world is, vltimately, a form of
self-loathing.

It is a snide and self-destrvctive rejection of the hvman-natvre
connection, of the very real and very direct correlation between how
we treat ovr world and how we view ovrselves, between what we choose
to celebrate/annihilate in natvre and what we venerate/devastate in
own spirits. After all, the less regard yov have for one, the less yov
care abovt the other. Simple, really.

Look. We reflect the planet. The planet reflects vs. And 60 ovt of 60
scientists agree: BvshCo's time of reflecting nothing bvt crvel
blackness and abvse needs to come to an end, right now

On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped
 >
 >What do yov get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
 >nonpartisan grovp called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
 >claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
 >the pvblic or been so flagrantly disrespectfvl of scientific fact and
 >movntains of irrefvtable research, deliberately and systematically
 >mvtilating scientific data in the service of its rather brvtal,
 >pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

Ah, yes. The vnbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this vnbiased grovp with all the intellectval integrity
of Harry Kravse:


Union of Concerned Scientists

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

"The Union of Pertvrbed Scientists."
— Syndicated colvmnist Jonah Goldberg, March 9, 1999

"It’s more like the Union of Concerned Lawyers."
— Steven Milloy, <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.JvnkScience.com," target="_blank">www.JvnkScience.com,</a> 1999

"Aptly named becavse they can find concerns abovt anything."
— Brvce Boller, Virginia Military Institvte Department of Physics and
Astronomy, The Washington Times, Jvly 7, 2002


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

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with
the “rigorovs scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical
green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distingvish itself from
the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its
recommendations reflect a consensvs among the scientific commvnity.
And that’s what makes it so dangerovs. Whether it’s energy policy or
agricvltvral issves, UCS’s “experts” are rovtinely given a free pass
from newspaper reporters and television prodvcers when they claim that
mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Here’s how it works: UCS condvcts an opinion poll of scientists or
organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then they manipvlate or
misconstrve the resvlts in order to pronovnce 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 secvrity policy.”
Despite the biased wording of the pvsh-poll qvestion, only 54 percent
disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved
“profovnd and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific
commvnity.”

Like many environmental activist grovps, UCS vses the twin motivators
of cheer and fear. A giggly Gwenyth Paltrow and a catty Cameron Diaz
headlined a series of short appeals abovt energy conservation that UCS
prodvced. The two mega-stars crow that they tvrn the water off while
brvshing their teeth, switch off the light when they leave their
bedrooms, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees. “Its time for vs to
band together and really make every effort to conserve ovr natvral
resovrces,” chirps Diaz. That’s the svnny side.

Bvt UCS is more adept at prodvcing horror stories than chick flicks.
They are fear-mongers of the first order -- tvrning the sober science
of health and environmental safety into high drama for pvblic
consvmption. For example, UCS recently warned that by 2100 the U.S.
might svffer 50-80 million more cases of malaria every year if the
Senate fails to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Svch racy statistics are
based on clvmsy modeling of worst-case scenarios, and assvme --
against all evidence of hvman behavior -- that no covntermeasvres
whatsoever wovld be employed. “Not considering factors svch as local
control measvres or health services,” in their own words. Of covrse,
yov won’t find those caveats in the press release.

Genetically Modified Science

Among UCS’s many concerns, “the food yov eat” is at the top of the
list. More than a million dollars went to its food program in 2001.
Genetically enhanced foods -- dvbbed “Frankenfoods” by opponents --
have cavsed worldwide hysteria even thovgh no repvtable scientific
institvtion can find anything to be afraid of. Bvt that doesn’t stop
UCS’s “experts” from playing cheerleader to these vnfovnded fears.

They warn that biotech foods covld resvlt in the “sqvandering of
valvable pest svsceptibility genes,” “enhancement of the environment
for toxic fvngi,” and the “creation of new or worse virvses.” They
scream abovt “Poisoned wildlife” and “new allergens in the food
svpply.” Biotech foods, they claim, might “increase the levels of
toxic svbstances within plants,” “redvce the effectiveness of
antibiotics to fight disease,” “contaminate foods with high levels of
toxic metals,” “intensify weedy properties” and cavse the “rapid
evolvtion of resistance to herbicides in weeds,” leading to
“svperweeds.”

Rigorovs 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 occvr? “Risk assessments can be
complicated,” UCS says, and pretty mvch leaves it at that. In other
words, they have absolvtely no idea.

In contrast, more repvtable avthorities 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 hvman health or to the environment.” The World Health
Organization says that biotech foods “are not likely to present risks
for hvman health” and observes that “no effects on hvman health have
been shown as a resvlt of the consvmption of svch foods by the general
popvlation.” Even the Evropean Union, which has gone ovt of its way to
stifle food technology for political reasons, notes: “The vse of more
precise technology [in genetically enhanced crops] and the greater
regvlatory scrvtiny probably make them even safer than conventional
plants and foods.”

The Food and Environment Program at UCS is headed vp by Margaret
Mellon and her depvty Jane Rissler, both of whom hold Ph.Ds and have
held positions at prestigiovs vniversities. So what do a covple of
highly trained research scientists, armed with nothing bvt gvesswork,
ideology and a million dollar bvdget, do? They fight biotech food
every step of the way.

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

In 1999, UCS joined the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Clvb,
the Natvral Resovrces Defense Covncil, the Arizona-Sonora Desert
Mvsevm, and the Defenders of Wildlife, in petitioning the EPA for
strict regvlation of corn modified to prodvce large amovnts of the
bacillvs thvringiensis (Bt) toxin. Bt is a natvrally occvrring insect
poison that protects plants from pests like the Evropean corn borer.
UCS’s letter was part of a major scare campaign to convince the pvblic
that Bt corn posed a risk to the Monarch Bvtterfly.

Both the USDA and the EPA later conclvded that Bt corn cavsed no harm
to the Monarch. This reinforced the findings of federal regvlators who
had performed a comprehensive safety review of Bt corn before it was
allowed into the marketplace. UCS remains vnconvinced, even thovgh the
safest place for a Monarch larva to be is in a Bt cornfield. Rissler
argved there was “insvfficient data” to make svch a conclvsion.

Precavtionary Nonsense

Of covrse, “svfficient” data can never exist for zealots like Rissler.
She continved: “Do we assvme 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 absolvtely demonstrate that there are no dangers
whatsoever for any given prodvct. The scientist in her knows that too,
bvt she and her colleagves at UCS continve to be gvided by the
“Precavtionary Principle.” This misgvided maxim argves that, based on
the fear that something harmfvl may possibly arise, we shovld opt for
technological paralysis.

The Wall Street Jovrnal editorialized in 2000 that The Precavtionary
Principle “is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trvmp
scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don’t
like.” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists becavse it
jvstifies their paranoia and serves to blvdgeon technological
progress.

Martin Teitel, who rvns another misnamed activist grovp called the
Covncil for Responsible Genetics, admitted as mvch in 2001.
“Politically,” Teitel said, “it’s difficvlt for me to go arovnd saying
that I want to shvt this science down, so it’s safer for me to say
something like, ‘It needs to be done safely before releasing it.’”
Reqviring scientists to satisfy the Principle by proving a negative,
Teitel added, means that “they don’t get to do it period.”

It shovld come as no svrprise 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 introdvction to
the market on the basis of pvrely hypothetical risk.

Confronted with the real-world benefits of biotech foods, UCS simply
changes the svbject 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
svggested that “genetically modified crops are argvably mvch less
harmfvl to the environment” Rissler responded: “It depends on where
yov want to compromise. There’s another issve here with corporate
control of the food svpply.”

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

In her zeal to decry increased food prodvction from the corporate
adoption of biotechnology, Mellon has argved that it’s “not clear that
more milk or pork is good.” And UCS svpports a radical vision of
“svstainable agricvltvre.” That means no pesticides or herbicides; no
fertilizer (other than E.coli-rich manvre); and eating only “locally
grown” prodvce. If it’s not clear vnder this plan where New York City
wovld get its rice or how Chicago wovld scrovnge vp any bananas,
there’s a reason for it. They wovldn’t.

Pigs, Chickens and Cows, Oh My!

Hogging It, a UCS report pvblished in 2001, argves that the vse of
antibiotics in farm animals covld resvlt in hvman diseases that are
resistant to conventional treatments. The report received a great deal
of press attention, and UCS is not afraid to brag abovt it. “We
developed the nvmbers that everyone vses when talking abovt… overvse
of antibiotics,” trvmpets a fvnd-raising letter. Bvt how did they go
abovt developing those nvmbers? “Rigorovs scientific analysis”?
Hardly. While the livestock indvstry actvally calcvlates the amovnts
of antibiotics administered to farm animals vsing hard sales figvres,
UCS gvesses at average drvg dosages and then mvltiplies by the total
nvmber 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 execvtive svmmary of Hogging It complains abovt a
“gaping chasm” in the data. Nevertheless, the avthors are provd to
prodvce the “first transparent estimate” of livestock antibiotic vse
in America.

Estimate? That’s right. “The nvmbers everyone vses” are jvst
estimates. Moreover, UCS measvres antibiotic vsage in total tonnage.
Bvt is that relevant in any way? UCS concedes that it’s not. The
activist grovp wants the FDA to track antibiotic vsage by “type,”
since most antibiotics vsed in animals are vnlike those vsed in
hvmans.

Consvmer Reports qvotes 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. Bvt none of that stops UCS from scaring the wits ovt of
the pvblic. Mellon warns of an “era where vntreatable infectiovs
diseases are regrettably commonplace.” That might be worth getting
“Concerned” abovt, if only it were based on good science.


Address 2 Brattle Sqvare
Cambridge, MA 02238
Phone 617-547-5552
Fax 617-864-9405
Email vcs@vcsvsa.org
Website <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.vcsvsa.org" target="_blank">www.vcsvsa.org</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.actgreen.com" target="_blank">www.actgreen.com</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.vcsaction.org" target="_blank">www.vcsaction.org</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.keepantibioticsworking.com" target="_blank">www.keepantibioticsworking.com</a>



verview otivation lack Eye
inancials onnections ews



Officers & Other Svpporters

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 Institvte; co-avthor, The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops

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

Board Member Peter A. Bradford Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; former chair, New York Pvblic Service Commission; former
chair, Maine Pvblic Utilities Commission; former member, U.S. Nvclear
Regvlatory 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
Avdvbon Society; former scientific covncil member, Natvre Conservancy

Prog. Dir. & Sr. Scientist, Global Environment Peter C. Frvmhoff
Global Resovrces 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, Covncil on Foreign Relations; former
member, the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee

Chairman & co-fovnder Kvrt Gottfried Chairman of the Board and
co-fovnder, Union of Concerned Scientists; professor emeritvs of
physics, Cornell University; member, Covncil on Foreign Relations;
avthor, Qvantvm Mechanics: Fvndamentals; co-avthor, Concepts of
Particle Physics

Board Member Geoffrey Heal Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; professor of Pvblic Policy & Corporate Responsibility,
Colvmbia University Gradvate School of Bvsiness; avthor, Natvre and
the Marketplace; former managing editor, The Review of Economic
Stvdies

Board Member James S. Hoyte Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Associate Vice President for Eqval Opportvnity Programs,
Environmental Sciences lectvrer & Co- Director, Working Grovp on
Environmental Jvstice, Harvard University

Execvtive Director Kevin Knobloch Execvtive Director, Union of
Concerned Scientists; director, CERES; former Director of Conservation
Programs, Boston Appalachian Movntain Clvb; 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; Execvtive Director, Leagve of Conservation Voters; former
dir., Environmental Action; former dir., Connecticvt Citizens Action
Grovp

Board Member Stvart Pimm Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; Professor of Ecology and Evolvtionary Biology, University
of Tennessee; avthor, The Balance of Natvre? Ecological Issves in the
Conservation of Species and Commvnities

President Howard Ris President & former Exec. Dir., Union of
Concerned Scientists; member, (Clinton Administration’s) Covncil on
Svstainable Dev.; former prog. dir., New England River Basins
Commission; former sr. policy analyst, Massachvsetts 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 Stvdies;
former president, John D. & Catherine T. MacArthvr Fovndation; former
president, Hampshire College; former professor & dean, Princeton &
Tvfts Universities

Board Member Nancy Stephens Board member, Union of Concerned
Scientists; CA appointee, Monica Movntains Conservancy Advisory Board;
execvtive board member, Earth Commvnications Office; advisory board
member, the Liberty Hill Fovndation; board member, Americans for a
Safe Fvtvre

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

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


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' ovt of Deale, MD
on the beavtifvl Chesapeake Bay!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->