Not to be argumentative, but WHY, if someone--say a scientist--or even a
concerned citizen--makes a statement that we humans are damaging our
environment, or there is some environmental pollutant that is causing
illness to humans who happen to be down wind (or stream)--WHY are they
called a "SOCIALIST" or worse a "COMMUNIST" and their statements or opinions
summarily dismissed?

For example, my wife has asthma--very severe asthma. Since we live in
Kentucky and there are no blanket rules against smoking in public buildings,
we have to carefully choose which public places we enter.  Yet, when we
mention that we must sit far away from the smoking section of a restaurant,
invariably a patron of the restaurant who happens to be a smoker begins an
accusatory tirade questioning our political affiliation.  I apologize, but
my desire--and my wife's NEED--to avoid cigarette smoke has NOTHING to do
with whether or not belong to the failed Stalinist political system.

The same goes with these scientists. When they make a statement--such as
rising CO2 levels are causing global warming or industrial pollutants are
causing illness--their CREDENTIALS are not questioned--but their political
agenda is.

When your doctor tells you your blood pressure is too high, and your
cholesterol is approaching 911, you do not question whether or not he has a
political agenda against highly stressed people and pig farmers, do you?
You do not accuse him of attempting to ruin your livelihood (or the pork
producer's) by asking that you live healthier?  You either lose weight,
chill out, and lower your cholesterol or you ignore him and see who dies
first.



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Wonsil [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: More red meat for the masses


Wirt incites, er, cites:
> "Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the
> quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the
> government's outstanding scientific personnel," said Dr. Kurt
> Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and
> Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Whether the issue is
> lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious
> consequences for all Americans."

Now what would Wirt say?  That's right, "Lordy".

Despite their claims to the opposite, the Union of Concerned Scientists are
about as partisan as one can get.  One could call them the Union of
Concerned Socialists really.  If you check their web site you will find an
organization that believes that government control is the answer to every
problem.  I believe they can accurately be described as "watermelons".

http://www.langmaker.com/db/eng_watermelon.htm


Mark W.

P.S.  Just when you thought it was safe to post, Wirt engages his leave no
flame-war behind campaign.  ;-)

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *