Saturday, January 24, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
We are an industry that is beset with an overwhelming need for regulations. How did all of this come about? It is bad enough when government bureaucrats make all sorts of demands, but now we are hiring our own bureaucrats to create regulations that will eventually be more egregious than the governments. Recently I commented on Frank Andorka’s blog “One More Thing”, (which I have added to my blog role) regarding these organizations that are setting up standards for companies to become “green” certified. I would like to share those comments with some additions.
We need to go back to 1933. “In May and June of 1933 the Congress and Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the National Recovery Administration as a key measure in a program of national recovery from the depression. NRA demanded that business, though its trade associations, establish codes of fair trade practices which had provisions for minimum wages, determine the number of hours per week an employee could work, insure fair prices for and industry and prevent “unfair” competition within an industry.” (It might be noted that economists now believe that this, along with other such programs extended and worsened the Great Depression)
“The belief was that if an industry couldn’t produce a code acceptable to the NRA administrators that they would impose one of their own.” SCOTUS found this to be unconstitutional two years later. However, the “Trade Associations Industry” as we know it today was created.
“Some believe that the short-lived NRA proved to be a blessing for the pest control industry, because it fostered a national organization which led a mixed assortment of rat catchers and exterminators from novitiate to professional status in a relative short span of years.” This was true, but all of our trade associations (not just pest control) are designed to be handmaidens of government compromise and a easy and efficient way for those with agendas to implement regulations that could never have passed muster if they had been submitted to a vote.
“The Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.” I have some questions.
We are an industry that is beset with an overwhelming need for regulations. How did all of this come about? It is bad enough when government bureaucrats make all sorts of demands, but now we are hiring our own bureaucrats to create regulations that will eventually be more egregious than the governments. Recently I commented on Frank Andorka’s blog “One More Thing”, (which I have added to my blog role) regarding these organizations that are setting up standards for companies to become “green” certified. I would like to share those comments with some additions.
We need to go back to 1933. “In May and June of 1933 the Congress and Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the National Recovery Administration as a key measure in a program of national recovery from the depression. NRA demanded that business, though its trade associations, establish codes of fair trade practices which had provisions for minimum wages, determine the number of hours per week an employee could work, insure fair prices for and industry and prevent “unfair” competition within an industry.” (It might be noted that economists now believe that this, along with other such programs extended and worsened the Great Depression)
“The belief was that if an industry couldn’t produce a code acceptable to the NRA administrators that they would impose one of their own.” SCOTUS found this to be unconstitutional two years later. However, the “Trade Associations Industry” as we know it today was created.
“Some believe that the short-lived NRA proved to be a blessing for the pest control industry, because it fostered a national organization which led a mixed assortment of rat catchers and exterminators from novitiate to professional status in a relative short span of years.” This was true, but all of our trade associations (not just pest control) are designed to be handmaidens of government compromise and a easy and efficient way for those with agendas to implement regulations that could never have passed muster if they had been submitted to a vote.
“The Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.” I have some questions.
• Does
anyone really believe that government regulators believe there are too many
regulations?
• Does anyone believe that no more will be passed?
• Does anyone believe that some should be eliminated?
• Why then do we need to impose our own regulations on ourselves?
• Would someone tell me what regulations are not already covered under Common Law?
• If they are already covered under Common Law, why then is it necessary to have so many?
• Why do they keep increasing?
• Does anyone believe that no more will be passed?
• Does anyone believe that some should be eliminated?
• Why then do we need to impose our own regulations on ourselves?
• Would someone tell me what regulations are not already covered under Common Law?
• If they are already covered under Common Law, why then is it necessary to have so many?
• Why do they keep increasing?
Those 78,090 pages only cover federal regulations. That doesn’t even begin to cover local and state regulations. The last figure that I read was about 10 years ago which stated that all of these regulations cost each family in America between 10and 15 thousand dollars a year. Do we really believe that cost is worth it?
Let us not lose sight of reality….regulations are a way around Constitutional protections for those with an agenda. The Fourth Amendment says that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fifth Amendment says among other things that, “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Yet we are forced to allow regulators to enter our businesses and search through the building (inspect) and go through our records (inspect) to see if we have committed some technical violation. Can anyone explain to me how calling a “search” an “inspection” changes the Constitutional standard? No policeman or investigator in the country can do that without a warrant.
To be Green is to be irrational and misanthropic! This leads me to ask some questions.
Question
- Why do we keep failing to realize that there is no way to appease the
greenies?
Answer –It is either a matter of complacency, or because of incredible short sightedness and we keep thinking that we can benefit from this stuff.
Question - Why do we want to be green?
Answer – It isn’t just because we have been misled, which we have; it’s because if feels good! We get to go along to get along. We get to be lauded and praised for being on a higher moral plane than our peers.
Question – Is it a failure of information?
Answer - Not for those who have been reading more than just the newspaper. The amount of information on any given subject today is almost staggering. There is no excuse for not knowing all sides of a subject. Everything we are told, everything we see on the news, everything we read in the newspaper or on the internet should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.
Question - Is it a failure of intelligence?
Answer – Yes and no. Some just can’t grasp what is really happening. Others refuse to grasp what is happening. Those who do grasp the entirety of it all are either appeasers or adversaries.
Question - Is it a failure of courage?
Answer - _____________________________Fill in the blank.
Answer –It is either a matter of complacency, or because of incredible short sightedness and we keep thinking that we can benefit from this stuff.
Question - Why do we want to be green?
Answer – It isn’t just because we have been misled, which we have; it’s because if feels good! We get to go along to get along. We get to be lauded and praised for being on a higher moral plane than our peers.
Question – Is it a failure of information?
Answer - Not for those who have been reading more than just the newspaper. The amount of information on any given subject today is almost staggering. There is no excuse for not knowing all sides of a subject. Everything we are told, everything we see on the news, everything we read in the newspaper or on the internet should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality.
Question - Is it a failure of intelligence?
Answer – Yes and no. Some just can’t grasp what is really happening. Others refuse to grasp what is happening. Those who do grasp the entirety of it all are either appeasers or adversaries.
Question - Is it a failure of courage?
Answer - _____________________________Fill in the blank.
Setting up outside non-governmental organizations who will sit back and determine whether we meet some sort of arbitrary standard for “green” (or anything else for that matter) is an invitation for more and more intrusive behavior and demands to jump through unnecessary hoops to appease these private“for hire” bureaucrats. Eventually each will, in order to appease the greenies, compete to see who can be the most oppressive in their demands. Once certified, you will have to keep making changes to maintain that certification. That is what regulators do. Whether they work for the government or they are“regulations for hire” regulators. They create regulations…because if they don’t….they aren’t necessary and they would have to go out and get a real job.
This is a Paraphrased quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC). “An industry can survive those who are foolish and careless. It can survive the overly ambitious, but it cannot survive those who attack an industry and what it stands for from within. The activists are more to be desired because they present themselves as the enemy at the gate. Although they may use deceit and cunning they are known because they carry their banner openly. No matter how formidable they may be they cannot be as serious a threat as those who wear the garments, speak the language and share the customs of those within an organization while secretly working that which is harmful. They rot the heart of an industry, undermine the pillars of support and infect the industry with their treason to the point that those who see clearly and understand what is really going on are left standing alone. That industry will no longer be able to resist those who would destroy it. Can any crime be feared more?”
When we adopt these programs, whether it is through a private “non-profit”group or through some government agency, or through our trade associations we are just like the Trojans dragging the horse into their city. We become enablers to those who would destroy us.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
by Rich Kozlovich
Science fiction writers are an interesting lot. They do seem to have an innate ability to see farther into the future than most. They can take seemingly innocuous trends and extend the potential effects of these trends beyond the horizon. Forty some years ago I read a science fiction short story that dealt with the concept of risk mitigation.
As the story went, there was some scientist on another planet who created robots whose sole purpose was to keep people safe. Although this scientist's motives were of the highest order, his creation got away from him. Naturally, these robots had difficulty determining what exactly "safe" meant, and interpreted their programming far beyond anything he had intended or wanted. They extended risk mitigation to a computers logical extreme and stifled all activity.
They increased in number and eventually discovered the Earth. They started out quietly by creating an automobile that was called (if I remember this correctly) the Everlasting Car. Safe, efficient, cost effective wouldn’t rust (that was a big deal in the 50’s and 60’s), and they were, most importantly, very inexpensive. Soon they put all other car companies out of business. This gave them enormous capital and credibility and they soon took over more and more of mankind’s responsibilities.
There was to be no war, no dangerous jobs and no risk to mankind of any kind. Naturally everyone thought this was a great idea. Everyone was to be safe! Except that the robots would be the ones to determine what constituted "safe". Since these were robots with computer brains, “safe” became extreme, and now this “great idea” wasn’t so great anymore….but it was too late. They now controlled every aspect of human life.
The state of New York has banned total release aerosol cans because some idiots blew up their houses with them. I am sorry that people do stupid things….it is unfortunately part of what it means to be human. It is unfortunate that homes have been destroyed and extremely unfortunate when someone is hurt. I have to ask though; over the whole of this country; in how many houses has this happened over the last 60 years? I would bet that the number is remarkably low compared to the number of aerosol cans sold.
Although I have used them I've never been a big fan of total release aerosols, but when these products are removed from the market, “for our own good”, are we not now depriving responsible people of the ability to control pests in their homes. Are they all that effective? I don’t think so, but they do have their place and people should have the choice and option to use them or not as they please.
Risks are definable and there are charts that list risks. Approximately fifty thousand people are killed on the nation’s highways every year. Between ten and fifteen thousand children are hurt by lawn mowers each and every year. Each and every year approximately three million adolescents will contract a sexually transmitted disease and thousands drown every year. These are very high on the risk charts and yet we find it necessary to ban total release aerosol cans.
Our view of risk has been molded by misinformation through a corrupt media. We worry unendingly about theoretical risks regarding genetically modified foods, food additives, hormones in milk, electromagnetic radiation, fluoride and chlorine in our water and most importantly, pesticide residues on our fruits and vegetables. These have been shown to be extremely low on the risk charts.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In reality we live longer, healthier and more satisfied fulfilling lives than ever in human history. In 1945 the world’s population amounted to two billion people, and it took thousands of years to attain that number. During the time when modern chemistry came into its own, mankind’s numbers grew at an unprecedented rate, with people living longer to boot. The greenies constantly spew out all forms of claptrap about how dangerous chemicals and modern living are; and yet if all that they claim was true; do we really believe that we would have increased the world’s population to over six billion in less than 75 years?
Make no mistake about this. The patterns of history will repeat over and over again. Starting with the Progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, which laid the ground work for Woodrow Wilson's (whom historians call the first Fascist president)massive government programs, which was the basis for FDR’s New Deal (same people and programs as Wilson’s with different names), to Nixon’s massive regulatory factories at EPA, OSHA, and the Wildlife Service enforcing the Endangered Species Act, we see that very same extreme computer like mentality. We know best! Only we can protect you from yourself! Perhaps they really are from another planet.
We need to stop emoting and start thinking. That starts by reading something besides the lava flow of misinformation put out by the EPA and the green movement. I would like to recommend the book "Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals", by the American Council on Science and Health.
Science fiction writers are an interesting lot. They do seem to have an innate ability to see farther into the future than most. They can take seemingly innocuous trends and extend the potential effects of these trends beyond the horizon. Forty some years ago I read a science fiction short story that dealt with the concept of risk mitigation.
As the story went, there was some scientist on another planet who created robots whose sole purpose was to keep people safe. Although this scientist's motives were of the highest order, his creation got away from him. Naturally, these robots had difficulty determining what exactly "safe" meant, and interpreted their programming far beyond anything he had intended or wanted. They extended risk mitigation to a computers logical extreme and stifled all activity.
They increased in number and eventually discovered the Earth. They started out quietly by creating an automobile that was called (if I remember this correctly) the Everlasting Car. Safe, efficient, cost effective wouldn’t rust (that was a big deal in the 50’s and 60’s), and they were, most importantly, very inexpensive. Soon they put all other car companies out of business. This gave them enormous capital and credibility and they soon took over more and more of mankind’s responsibilities.
There was to be no war, no dangerous jobs and no risk to mankind of any kind. Naturally everyone thought this was a great idea. Everyone was to be safe! Except that the robots would be the ones to determine what constituted "safe". Since these were robots with computer brains, “safe” became extreme, and now this “great idea” wasn’t so great anymore….but it was too late. They now controlled every aspect of human life.
The state of New York has banned total release aerosol cans because some idiots blew up their houses with them. I am sorry that people do stupid things….it is unfortunately part of what it means to be human. It is unfortunate that homes have been destroyed and extremely unfortunate when someone is hurt. I have to ask though; over the whole of this country; in how many houses has this happened over the last 60 years? I would bet that the number is remarkably low compared to the number of aerosol cans sold.
Although I have used them I've never been a big fan of total release aerosols, but when these products are removed from the market, “for our own good”, are we not now depriving responsible people of the ability to control pests in their homes. Are they all that effective? I don’t think so, but they do have their place and people should have the choice and option to use them or not as they please.
Risks are definable and there are charts that list risks. Approximately fifty thousand people are killed on the nation’s highways every year. Between ten and fifteen thousand children are hurt by lawn mowers each and every year. Each and every year approximately three million adolescents will contract a sexually transmitted disease and thousands drown every year. These are very high on the risk charts and yet we find it necessary to ban total release aerosol cans.
Our view of risk has been molded by misinformation through a corrupt media. We worry unendingly about theoretical risks regarding genetically modified foods, food additives, hormones in milk, electromagnetic radiation, fluoride and chlorine in our water and most importantly, pesticide residues on our fruits and vegetables. These have been shown to be extremely low on the risk charts.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In reality we live longer, healthier and more satisfied fulfilling lives than ever in human history. In 1945 the world’s population amounted to two billion people, and it took thousands of years to attain that number. During the time when modern chemistry came into its own, mankind’s numbers grew at an unprecedented rate, with people living longer to boot. The greenies constantly spew out all forms of claptrap about how dangerous chemicals and modern living are; and yet if all that they claim was true; do we really believe that we would have increased the world’s population to over six billion in less than 75 years?
Make no mistake about this. The patterns of history will repeat over and over again. Starting with the Progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, which laid the ground work for Woodrow Wilson's (whom historians call the first Fascist president)massive government programs, which was the basis for FDR’s New Deal (same people and programs as Wilson’s with different names), to Nixon’s massive regulatory factories at EPA, OSHA, and the Wildlife Service enforcing the Endangered Species Act, we see that very same extreme computer like mentality. We know best! Only we can protect you from yourself! Perhaps they really are from another planet.
We need to stop emoting and start thinking. That starts by reading something besides the lava flow of misinformation put out by the EPA and the green movement. I would like to recommend the book "Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals", by the American Council on Science and Health.
By Rich
Kozlovich
It was reported on February 4th that Bill Gates released mosquitoes in the conference room of a “well heeled crowd” of attendees at a technical conference in Calfiornia; proclaiming that “Malaria is spread by mosquitoes; I brought some. Here, I’ll let them roam around – there is no reason only poor people should be infected.’
Needless to say the crowd wasn’t happy, even after he assured them that these mosquitoes weren’t carrying malaria parasites, but I thought the whole irony of this stunt was rich in symbolism. The “rich” and I include everyone living in the first world, including you and me because we benefit from the realities of first world economics generally don’t worry about mosquito borne diseases because we can afford to spray for them and we do. First it was DDT, and now we have a host of products that are used (none of which the greenies support by the way, so whether it is DDT or anything else it just doesn’t matter to these misanthropes). Yet so many in the first world stand against the use of products, including DDT, that will save millions of lives. However, what if it was different?
Secondly we have expensive medications. David Gardner makes this point,“Although pills exist that can help prevent malaria, there is currently no vaccine. Preventative medication is used mainly by travelers and is not available to the vast majority of people living in the Third World.” Although he goes on to note that, “Resistance to antibiotics by the malaria parasite is also becoming a problem, with some preventative medications no longer effective in certain parts of the world.” However, what if it was different?
So why did Bill Gates “perform” this stunt. To advertise the disaster that malaria is to the rest of the world…to shock the “rich” out of their sense of complacency and help them to understand what it is like when it really is different and it is very different in the third world.
Gates quit Microsoft to work on his charitable programs. One of them is malaria, and he wanted to “hammer home the importance of malaria prevention.”He and his wife donated almost 170 million dollars last year to a program that is working to develop a vaccine for this nightmare disease.
In Africa there isn’t a family that hasn’t suffered from the tragedy of malaria and its overall effects; death, retardation, reoccurring afflictions, not to mention the economic impact of having so many sick people in a society all the time. No society can overcome poverty when so much money is devoted to caring for the sick. No economy can overcome poverty when so many are unable to work. No economy can overcome poverty when so many healthy people have to devote so much time to care for their loved ones. No economy can overcome poverty when the healthy will themselves be struck down by this disease and they all know it is just a matter of time before it is their turn. According to Gardner, “Up to 2.7 million people a year still die of malaria each year, 75 per cent of them African children”.
Gates has been criticized for not recognizing that DDT is still the number one product in malaria prevention, however I am not going to beat on him over this. He at least recognizes that the problem exists and how severe it is. He at least is putting his money where his mouth is. He at least is advertising how serious a problem this is and I have tremendous respect for him over this. Still…this is a case of not seeing the whole problem. Malaria isn’t the only disease transmitted by mosquitoes. Let’s review! I have logged onto two web sites; one from the CDC and one from the state of Minnesota. Why Minnesota? Because it is so far north…it isn’t a subtropical or tropical area. Let us review Minnesota's problems first.
It was reported on February 4th that Bill Gates released mosquitoes in the conference room of a “well heeled crowd” of attendees at a technical conference in Calfiornia; proclaiming that “Malaria is spread by mosquitoes; I brought some. Here, I’ll let them roam around – there is no reason only poor people should be infected.’
Needless to say the crowd wasn’t happy, even after he assured them that these mosquitoes weren’t carrying malaria parasites, but I thought the whole irony of this stunt was rich in symbolism. The “rich” and I include everyone living in the first world, including you and me because we benefit from the realities of first world economics generally don’t worry about mosquito borne diseases because we can afford to spray for them and we do. First it was DDT, and now we have a host of products that are used (none of which the greenies support by the way, so whether it is DDT or anything else it just doesn’t matter to these misanthropes). Yet so many in the first world stand against the use of products, including DDT, that will save millions of lives. However, what if it was different?
Secondly we have expensive medications. David Gardner makes this point,“Although pills exist that can help prevent malaria, there is currently no vaccine. Preventative medication is used mainly by travelers and is not available to the vast majority of people living in the Third World.” Although he goes on to note that, “Resistance to antibiotics by the malaria parasite is also becoming a problem, with some preventative medications no longer effective in certain parts of the world.” However, what if it was different?
So why did Bill Gates “perform” this stunt. To advertise the disaster that malaria is to the rest of the world…to shock the “rich” out of their sense of complacency and help them to understand what it is like when it really is different and it is very different in the third world.
Gates quit Microsoft to work on his charitable programs. One of them is malaria, and he wanted to “hammer home the importance of malaria prevention.”He and his wife donated almost 170 million dollars last year to a program that is working to develop a vaccine for this nightmare disease.
In Africa there isn’t a family that hasn’t suffered from the tragedy of malaria and its overall effects; death, retardation, reoccurring afflictions, not to mention the economic impact of having so many sick people in a society all the time. No society can overcome poverty when so much money is devoted to caring for the sick. No economy can overcome poverty when so many are unable to work. No economy can overcome poverty when so many healthy people have to devote so much time to care for their loved ones. No economy can overcome poverty when the healthy will themselves be struck down by this disease and they all know it is just a matter of time before it is their turn. According to Gardner, “Up to 2.7 million people a year still die of malaria each year, 75 per cent of them African children”.
Gates has been criticized for not recognizing that DDT is still the number one product in malaria prevention, however I am not going to beat on him over this. He at least recognizes that the problem exists and how severe it is. He at least is putting his money where his mouth is. He at least is advertising how serious a problem this is and I have tremendous respect for him over this. Still…this is a case of not seeing the whole problem. Malaria isn’t the only disease transmitted by mosquitoes. Let’s review! I have logged onto two web sites; one from the CDC and one from the state of Minnesota. Why Minnesota? Because it is so far north…it isn’t a subtropical or tropical area. Let us review Minnesota's problems first.
West
Nile Virus (WNV)
West Nile virus is a disease transmitted to people, horses, and birds. It is the most commonly reported mosquito-transmitted disease in Minnesota. Most people infected with West Nile virus show no symptoms or flu-like symptoms, but some (primarily elderly) have more severe illness.
LaCrosse Encephalitis (LAC)
LaCrosse encephalitis, which is transmitted by the Tree Hole mosquito, is responsible for 3 to 13 cases of severe illness (primarily in children) each year in Minnesota.
Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE)
During 1941, there was a large regional outbreak of Western equine encephalitis. There may have been as many as 791 cases in Minnesota that year with 90 deaths. In more recent years, Minnesota has had infrequent and smaller outbreaks of WEE (15 human cases in 1975, single cases in 1983 and 1999).
Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) Eastern equine encephalitis is a rare illness in humans, and only a few cases are reported in the United States each year. EEE is quite severe and typically fatal among infected horses.
St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE)
CDC; Cases of St. Louis encephalitis are usually the result of unpredictable and intermittent localized epidemics. Attention: Non-MDH link
Along with those listed above the CDClisted a few more.
Arboviral Encephalitides
Causes aseptic meningitis or encephalitis. Many cases have only fever with headache, but can progress to focal paralysis, intractable seizures, coma and death. Varies with occurrence and intensity of epidemic transmission; usually 150-3,000 cases/year.
Japanese encephalitis
Mild infections occur without apparent symptoms other than fever with headache. More severe infection is marked by quick onset, headache, high fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, occasional convulsions (especially in infants) and spastic (but rarely flaccid) paralysis.
Dengue Fever
Also known a break bone fever because of the pain the symptoms of dengue include, fever, severe headache, pain behind the eye , joint and muscle pain, rash. Usually dengue fever causes a mild illness, but it can be severe and even cause dengue hemorrhagic (bleeding) fever (DHF), which can be fatal if not treated. People who have had dengue fever before are more at risk of getting DHF.
No vaccine is available to prevent dengue, and there is no specific medicine to cure dengue. Those who become ill with dengue fever can be given medicine to reduce fever, such as acetaminophen, and may need oral rehydration or intravenous fluids and, in severe cases, treatment to support their blood pressure.
Rift Valley Fever
RVF virus can cause several different disease syndromes. People with RVF typically have either no symptoms or a mild illness associated with fever and liver abnormalities. However, in some patients the illness can progress to hemorrhagic fever (which can lead to shock or hemorrhage), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, which can lead to headaches, coma, or seizures), or ocular disease (diseases affecting the eye). Patients who become ill usually experience fever, generalized weakness, back pain, dizziness, and extreme weight loss at the onset of the illness. Typically, patients recover within two days to one week after onset of illness. The most common complication associated with RVF is inflammation of the retina (a structure connecting the nerves of the eye to the brain). As a result, approximately 1% - 10% of affected patients may have some permanent vision loss. Approximately 1% of humans that become infected with RVF die of the disease. Case-fatality proportions are significantly higher for infected animals. The most severe impact is observed in pregnant livestock infected with RVF, which results in abortion of virtually 100% of fetuses.
West Nile virus is a disease transmitted to people, horses, and birds. It is the most commonly reported mosquito-transmitted disease in Minnesota. Most people infected with West Nile virus show no symptoms or flu-like symptoms, but some (primarily elderly) have more severe illness.
LaCrosse Encephalitis (LAC)
LaCrosse encephalitis, which is transmitted by the Tree Hole mosquito, is responsible for 3 to 13 cases of severe illness (primarily in children) each year in Minnesota.
Western Equine Encephalitis (WEE)
During 1941, there was a large regional outbreak of Western equine encephalitis. There may have been as many as 791 cases in Minnesota that year with 90 deaths. In more recent years, Minnesota has had infrequent and smaller outbreaks of WEE (15 human cases in 1975, single cases in 1983 and 1999).
Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) Eastern equine encephalitis is a rare illness in humans, and only a few cases are reported in the United States each year. EEE is quite severe and typically fatal among infected horses.
St. Louis Encephalitis (SLE)
CDC; Cases of St. Louis encephalitis are usually the result of unpredictable and intermittent localized epidemics. Attention: Non-MDH link
Along with those listed above the CDClisted a few more.
Arboviral Encephalitides
Causes aseptic meningitis or encephalitis. Many cases have only fever with headache, but can progress to focal paralysis, intractable seizures, coma and death. Varies with occurrence and intensity of epidemic transmission; usually 150-3,000 cases/year.
Japanese encephalitis
Mild infections occur without apparent symptoms other than fever with headache. More severe infection is marked by quick onset, headache, high fever, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, occasional convulsions (especially in infants) and spastic (but rarely flaccid) paralysis.
Dengue Fever
Also known a break bone fever because of the pain the symptoms of dengue include, fever, severe headache, pain behind the eye , joint and muscle pain, rash. Usually dengue fever causes a mild illness, but it can be severe and even cause dengue hemorrhagic (bleeding) fever (DHF), which can be fatal if not treated. People who have had dengue fever before are more at risk of getting DHF.
No vaccine is available to prevent dengue, and there is no specific medicine to cure dengue. Those who become ill with dengue fever can be given medicine to reduce fever, such as acetaminophen, and may need oral rehydration or intravenous fluids and, in severe cases, treatment to support their blood pressure.
Rift Valley Fever
RVF virus can cause several different disease syndromes. People with RVF typically have either no symptoms or a mild illness associated with fever and liver abnormalities. However, in some patients the illness can progress to hemorrhagic fever (which can lead to shock or hemorrhage), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain, which can lead to headaches, coma, or seizures), or ocular disease (diseases affecting the eye). Patients who become ill usually experience fever, generalized weakness, back pain, dizziness, and extreme weight loss at the onset of the illness. Typically, patients recover within two days to one week after onset of illness. The most common complication associated with RVF is inflammation of the retina (a structure connecting the nerves of the eye to the brain). As a result, approximately 1% - 10% of affected patients may have some permanent vision loss. Approximately 1% of humans that become infected with RVF die of the disease. Case-fatality proportions are significantly higher for infected animals. The most severe impact is observed in pregnant livestock infected with RVF, which results in abortion of virtually 100% of fetuses.
It is easy to see that the picture is much larger than malaria. The best prevention against malaria and all the other afflictions that mosquitoes can transmit is to avoid getting bitten by a mosquito. Although that isn’t entirely possible, it can be seriously reduced by the appropriate application of pesticides. Pesticides that work and are affordable in the third world! I applaud Bill Gates: I just hope that he can begin to really see the whole picture and begin to realize that those who oppose pesticides can never be appeased because they are irrational and misanthropic.
The Boyd Principle states that at some point in our lives we come to a fork in the road and must make a decision. If you take one path you will be popular and you will be rewarded. If you take the other path you will be criticized, ridiculed and scorned. However, you won’t have to turn your back on your friends or your principles. If you are more concerned with accomplishing that which is right and best the satisfaction for having stood against the conventional wisdom on right principles will be your reward, and you may actually accomplish something worthwhile.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
All the nonsense about raptors, game birds, song birds and whole eco-systems being wiped out by DDT is just that….nonsense. All of the information that I have presented is public information and is readily available to anyone who really wants to know what the “true” DDT story is; so I am not going to waste my time providing anything for those who make a career out of attacking pesticides. And why? Because they can’t be swayed no matter what anyone says! Dealing with them is a Sisyphean task.
Normally I don't explain myself, but I am going to make an exception this time.
Rachel Carson and I have a great deal in common. We both grew up in Southwestern Pennsylvania. We both saw the irresponsible behavior industry and government demonstrated to the environment. We both saw the coke ovens bellowing dark smoke so thick that it would denude hillsides of greenery and even make it hard to see while driving along the highways near them. We both saw creeks that were colored a yellowish orange from the sulfur pumped out of the coal mines so thick that you couldn’t see the bottom, known commonly as“sulfur creeks”. We both saw the blacked walls of Pittsburgh from the smoke stacks of the furnaces that made steel. We both knew pollution up close and personal and resented it.
I believed all the things that were said about DDT. I believed that Rachel Carson was a truly brave and brilliant scientist. I believed that the EPA was a wonderful beneficent agency devoted to the well being of humanity; until I started researching the information for myself.
Being a pesticide applicator I wanted to make sure that what I was doing wasn’t hurting people and the environment. The more I read the more I became startled to find that everything I believed was complete nonsense; and nothing upsets a person more than being told that everything they believe is complete nonsense. Fortunately, I am only concerned with the facts, and I am prepared to go where the facts lead, and that is where Rachel Carson and I parted company. Rachel Carson, it turns out, was the mother of junk science, the EPA is a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations and DDT was one of the greatest discoveries ever in mankind’s history.
We need to see the face of DDT. We need to face the facts about DDT. We need to come to grips with the consequences of "going green" in those areas of the world that don't have the financial ability to use more expensive products, and yet still have mosquito pressure and diseases as we have never seen. And those consequences have a face. A face that is replicated to the tune of about a million a year!
Here are two articles that I have linked for this purpose. One is an oldie but a goodie and the second one is a heartbreaker. I have saved that one for last.
All the nonsense about raptors, game birds, song birds and whole eco-systems being wiped out by DDT is just that….nonsense. All of the information that I have presented is public information and is readily available to anyone who really wants to know what the “true” DDT story is; so I am not going to waste my time providing anything for those who make a career out of attacking pesticides. And why? Because they can’t be swayed no matter what anyone says! Dealing with them is a Sisyphean task.
Normally I don't explain myself, but I am going to make an exception this time.
Rachel Carson and I have a great deal in common. We both grew up in Southwestern Pennsylvania. We both saw the irresponsible behavior industry and government demonstrated to the environment. We both saw the coke ovens bellowing dark smoke so thick that it would denude hillsides of greenery and even make it hard to see while driving along the highways near them. We both saw creeks that were colored a yellowish orange from the sulfur pumped out of the coal mines so thick that you couldn’t see the bottom, known commonly as“sulfur creeks”. We both saw the blacked walls of Pittsburgh from the smoke stacks of the furnaces that made steel. We both knew pollution up close and personal and resented it.
I believed all the things that were said about DDT. I believed that Rachel Carson was a truly brave and brilliant scientist. I believed that the EPA was a wonderful beneficent agency devoted to the well being of humanity; until I started researching the information for myself.
Being a pesticide applicator I wanted to make sure that what I was doing wasn’t hurting people and the environment. The more I read the more I became startled to find that everything I believed was complete nonsense; and nothing upsets a person more than being told that everything they believe is complete nonsense. Fortunately, I am only concerned with the facts, and I am prepared to go where the facts lead, and that is where Rachel Carson and I parted company. Rachel Carson, it turns out, was the mother of junk science, the EPA is a virtual lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations and DDT was one of the greatest discoveries ever in mankind’s history.
We need to see the face of DDT. We need to face the facts about DDT. We need to come to grips with the consequences of "going green" in those areas of the world that don't have the financial ability to use more expensive products, and yet still have mosquito pressure and diseases as we have never seen. And those consequences have a face. A face that is replicated to the tune of about a million a year!
Here are two articles that I have linked for this purpose. One is an oldie but a goodie and the second one is a heartbreaker. I have saved that one for last.
DDT-eating scientist exposes eco-fraud, By
Jack Cashill
Posted: June 30, 2005
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
Editor's note: The following commentary is excerpted from Jack Cashill's eye-opening new book, "Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture," where he shows how, over the last century, "progressive" writers and producers have been using falsehood and fraud as their primary weapons in their attack on America.
If there is any one man who defined the word "environmentalist," it is the recently deceased J. Gordon Edwards. Edwards was an author, a park ranger, a legendary mountain climber, and an esteemed entomologist. In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her breakthrough book on the environment, "Silent Spring," Edwards was delighted. The young scientist eagerly raced through the first several chapters, but as he did, his anticipation eroded into uneasiness: "I noticed many statements that I realized were false." Attracted by Carson's message, Edwards tried to overlook the misstatements or to rationalize them away, but increasingly he could not. "As I neared the middle of the book," he adds, "the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts.
Posted: June 30, 2005
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
Editor's note: The following commentary is excerpted from Jack Cashill's eye-opening new book, "Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture," where he shows how, over the last century, "progressive" writers and producers have been using falsehood and fraud as their primary weapons in their attack on America.
If there is any one man who defined the word "environmentalist," it is the recently deceased J. Gordon Edwards. Edwards was an author, a park ranger, a legendary mountain climber, and an esteemed entomologist. In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her breakthrough book on the environment, "Silent Spring," Edwards was delighted. The young scientist eagerly raced through the first several chapters, but as he did, his anticipation eroded into uneasiness: "I noticed many statements that I realized were false." Attracted by Carson's message, Edwards tried to overlook the misstatements or to rationalize them away, but increasingly he could not. "As I neared the middle of the book," he adds, "the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts.
This Post Brought to You By the Green Movement, By
iowahawk
This is Bakouma Kpatekatola, a young man from the West African nation of Togo. In 2003, when Bakouma was 9 years old, my family became his sponsor through the Childreach-Plan USA organization. In the years since we became occasional pen pals; a few times a year we'd get a letter from him, in his native French, along with an English translation from his caseworker. Sometimes he spoke of coming to America. At Christmas the letters would contain a photo, which we ritually magnetted up on the fridge to chronicle his growth. We reciprocated with our family pictures. I sometimes wondered if he wondered about us like we wondered about him. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't really notice when we didn't receive his annual Christmas letter last year. Yesterday we received a letter from his caseworker explaining why: Bakouma died in December of malaria. He was 14 years old.
This is Bakouma Kpatekatola, a young man from the West African nation of Togo. In 2003, when Bakouma was 9 years old, my family became his sponsor through the Childreach-Plan USA organization. In the years since we became occasional pen pals; a few times a year we'd get a letter from him, in his native French, along with an English translation from his caseworker. Sometimes he spoke of coming to America. At Christmas the letters would contain a photo, which we ritually magnetted up on the fridge to chronicle his growth. We reciprocated with our family pictures. I sometimes wondered if he wondered about us like we wondered about him. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't really notice when we didn't receive his annual Christmas letter last year. Yesterday we received a letter from his caseworker explaining why: Bakouma died in December of malaria. He was 14 years old.
DDT isn't a dead issue...it is the only issue. There will come a day when something will be as cost effective and efficacious as DDT, and I will be happy to support that in place of DDT. However, it will still be THE issue. Why? Because the lies told about DDT gave impetus to a movement that is irrational and misanthropic. It is the emotional basis for every outrageous claim made against pesticides and chemicals in general. Does anyone really think that whatever is used in place of DDT, now or in the future, will please the greenies? They will work just as hard to ban those products also.
Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. The people of the world live longer, healthier lives than at any time in recorded history and chemistry is the reason for it. That is a reality we should appreciate and embrace. This is a reality that should cause us to challenge the very idea of "going green". "Going Green" isn't about responsible environmental behavior in support of humankind. It is about elevating the environment above humankind. To mankind’s detriment! And when we embrace “going green”; we are enablers to a philosophy that is irrational and misanthropic.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
*-Updated 7-2-11
Words are powerful tools, especially when those words can't properly be defined and evoke a tremendous emotional response. Safe is one such word. Everyone wants their families to be safe. Everyone wants safe products. Well, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that there can be no margin for error? Does that mean that there must be a total amelioration of all pain? Does that mean that nothing must ever go wrong?
Approximately 50,000 people die (*It is claimed that this number has dropped signifigantly over the last 10 years, although it is still high. The actual number seems to be in question.) every year on America’s highways. Is driving safe? Every year people die from accidental electrocution. Is electricity safe? Every year a great many children drown. Is swimming safe?
Is it possible to show that any product is safe? NO! You can only prove something is unsafe, otherwise you are asking someone to prove a negative, a factual impossibility. We can only prove what things do, not what they don’t do. It is like asking someone to prove that they aren’t cheating on their spouse. You can only prove that someone is cheating. You cannot in any way prove that someone isn’t cheating.
Yet we are being required to show that pesticides are safe before we use them. This irrational, unscientific demand is made over and over again, and done so without protest. Worse yet it is done with support from many in and around our industry. Why? Because safe is one of those difficult to define words that can unite people in a cause that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy all over, not mention the feeling of moral superiority. After all, who is going to support un-safe products and practices?
These issues surrounding DDT demonstrate such unintended consequences of such emotional causes. Even after all the evidence has shown that most of what Rachel Carson said was inaccurate, even to the extent of misrepresenting the facts; even after everything she predicted turned out to be wrong; even after all the pain and suffering that has been, and is still being caused by the ban on DDT; people will not properly connect the ban with the disasters banning DDT caused.
There are those who will still defend the ban with fallacious arguments and demand more bans and more restrictions in the name of safety...especially "for the children". They simply refuse to admit they were wrong, in spite of all the pain and suffering, and mostly to the children. Why? It isn’t simply a matter of pride either. This refusal to admit that which should be obvious to the most casual observer is being driven by a misanthropic philosophy called environmentalism. Call it an “organic” philosophy, call it a “green”philosophy, simply call it IPM, it doesn’t matter; the goal is to eliminate products that allow more people to live longer, healthier lives; and they do it with fallacious health claims about pesticides.
Thomas Sowell, in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, defined logical fallacies in the following manner. “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment-
Let’s take the Fallacy of composition. It goes like this; DDT is found in birds. DDT killed the birds. Let’s ban DDT. Since DDT was a pesticide, and it was found in birds that died, all pesticides must kill birds; let’s ban all pesticides. Pesticides are chemicals and pesticides were found in dead birds so chemicals must kill birds; let’s ban all chemicals.
Our industry is so hot to be green and yet we don’t seem to have a clue as to what “going green” is going to mean to society as a whole. GO GREEN! GO GREEN! is the cry, but where is this leading? The activists never seem to have to explain their motives or ultimate goals. What are those goals? Let us have no doubts that the elimination of pesticides is one of them.
Actually it should be immaterial to intelligent, insightful, compassionate people whether they explain their goals or not. We should be able to see what their motives and goals are by the devastation they have wrought in the rest of the world.
We now know that environmentalism isn’t safe. Tell me; do you think that environmentalism should be banned?
*-Updated 7-2-11
Words are powerful tools, especially when those words can't properly be defined and evoke a tremendous emotional response. Safe is one such word. Everyone wants their families to be safe. Everyone wants safe products. Well, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that there can be no margin for error? Does that mean that there must be a total amelioration of all pain? Does that mean that nothing must ever go wrong?
Approximately 50,000 people die (*It is claimed that this number has dropped signifigantly over the last 10 years, although it is still high. The actual number seems to be in question.) every year on America’s highways. Is driving safe? Every year people die from accidental electrocution. Is electricity safe? Every year a great many children drown. Is swimming safe?
Is it possible to show that any product is safe? NO! You can only prove something is unsafe, otherwise you are asking someone to prove a negative, a factual impossibility. We can only prove what things do, not what they don’t do. It is like asking someone to prove that they aren’t cheating on their spouse. You can only prove that someone is cheating. You cannot in any way prove that someone isn’t cheating.
Yet we are being required to show that pesticides are safe before we use them. This irrational, unscientific demand is made over and over again, and done so without protest. Worse yet it is done with support from many in and around our industry. Why? Because safe is one of those difficult to define words that can unite people in a cause that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy all over, not mention the feeling of moral superiority. After all, who is going to support un-safe products and practices?
These issues surrounding DDT demonstrate such unintended consequences of such emotional causes. Even after all the evidence has shown that most of what Rachel Carson said was inaccurate, even to the extent of misrepresenting the facts; even after everything she predicted turned out to be wrong; even after all the pain and suffering that has been, and is still being caused by the ban on DDT; people will not properly connect the ban with the disasters banning DDT caused.
There are those who will still defend the ban with fallacious arguments and demand more bans and more restrictions in the name of safety...especially "for the children". They simply refuse to admit they were wrong, in spite of all the pain and suffering, and mostly to the children. Why? It isn’t simply a matter of pride either. This refusal to admit that which should be obvious to the most casual observer is being driven by a misanthropic philosophy called environmentalism. Call it an “organic” philosophy, call it a “green”philosophy, simply call it IPM, it doesn’t matter; the goal is to eliminate products that allow more people to live longer, healthier lives; and they do it with fallacious health claims about pesticides.
Thomas Sowell, in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, defined logical fallacies in the following manner. “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment-
Let’s take the Fallacy of composition. It goes like this; DDT is found in birds. DDT killed the birds. Let’s ban DDT. Since DDT was a pesticide, and it was found in birds that died, all pesticides must kill birds; let’s ban all pesticides. Pesticides are chemicals and pesticides were found in dead birds so chemicals must kill birds; let’s ban all chemicals.
Our industry is so hot to be green and yet we don’t seem to have a clue as to what “going green” is going to mean to society as a whole. GO GREEN! GO GREEN! is the cry, but where is this leading? The activists never seem to have to explain their motives or ultimate goals. What are those goals? Let us have no doubts that the elimination of pesticides is one of them.
Actually it should be immaterial to intelligent, insightful, compassionate people whether they explain their goals or not. We should be able to see what their motives and goals are by the devastation they have wrought in the rest of the world.
We now know that environmentalism isn’t safe. Tell me; do you think that environmentalism should be banned?
by Rich
Kozlovich
Activists make unscientific claims, convinced that they have all the answers and demand that everyone accept the idea that they know best about everything, and they should be put in charge of everyone’s life. This is really scary; I'm not even sure if they have the questions!
Not only because they have crazy ideas, but also because as soon as they come up with a solution, they end up protesting the very solutions they have promoted. Worse yet, their solutions always seem to be meaningless failures at best, but at the worst, their solutions are deadly.
They make all sorts of claims and express deep concern about environmental disasters that are supposedly manmade. It would be nice if they were as concerned about the disasters they really have caused worldwide with their policies. Unlike their lunatic claims, these disasters are not theoretical. These disasters are very real and very real people really are dying very real deaths and suffering very real afflictions; and it is happening to millions because of them. So then; why do we want to become green?
In spite of the fact that there is a whole history out there that shows what happens when greenie policy becomes government policy; we have this feel good activism within our industry. An industry that should know better! What could be more distrssing then that.
Over the years I have seen more junk science in the media than I thought possible. How could I be so sure that this stuff is “Junk”? I have read enough to know when something is odiferous and where to go to properly research the information for myself. Also, some time ago I became a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and as a result I found that every scare promulgated by the activists was responded to by ACSH; usually by the very next day. In 2007 they instituted the Morning Dispatch to members. Just about every morning ACSH has a dispatch in my e-mail box letting me know what new scare is being pushed and their response to it. These responses aren't always unfavorable as they are concerned with the facts and they are prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead. Great stuff! This gives me a leg up in order to see what the whole story really is…..I don’t always agree with ACSH, albeit, I have great confidence in their expertise and integrity.
Last year their integrity was challenged by activists who didn’t like a stand they took on some issue. They claimed that ACSH only touted their position because they received funding from some large corporation, in spite of the fact that the amount was very small, and compared to be huge take the greenies bring in every year it certainly was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. At any rate Elizabeth Whelan handled this in a way that I will never forget. She told the activists whom ACSH stood against that if they thought that their views could be swayed by funding; then fund ACSH and see what happens. She didn’t get a check.
I would like to recommend that everyone consider joining…… This link "Donate to ACSH" will take you to the appropriated page, and while there, take time to explore their site…..it is worth the trip.
Activists make unscientific claims, convinced that they have all the answers and demand that everyone accept the idea that they know best about everything, and they should be put in charge of everyone’s life. This is really scary; I'm not even sure if they have the questions!
Not only because they have crazy ideas, but also because as soon as they come up with a solution, they end up protesting the very solutions they have promoted. Worse yet, their solutions always seem to be meaningless failures at best, but at the worst, their solutions are deadly.
They make all sorts of claims and express deep concern about environmental disasters that are supposedly manmade. It would be nice if they were as concerned about the disasters they really have caused worldwide with their policies. Unlike their lunatic claims, these disasters are not theoretical. These disasters are very real and very real people really are dying very real deaths and suffering very real afflictions; and it is happening to millions because of them. So then; why do we want to become green?
In spite of the fact that there is a whole history out there that shows what happens when greenie policy becomes government policy; we have this feel good activism within our industry. An industry that should know better! What could be more distrssing then that.
Over the years I have seen more junk science in the media than I thought possible. How could I be so sure that this stuff is “Junk”? I have read enough to know when something is odiferous and where to go to properly research the information for myself. Also, some time ago I became a member of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and as a result I found that every scare promulgated by the activists was responded to by ACSH; usually by the very next day. In 2007 they instituted the Morning Dispatch to members. Just about every morning ACSH has a dispatch in my e-mail box letting me know what new scare is being pushed and their response to it. These responses aren't always unfavorable as they are concerned with the facts and they are prepared to follow the facts wherever they may lead. Great stuff! This gives me a leg up in order to see what the whole story really is…..I don’t always agree with ACSH, albeit, I have great confidence in their expertise and integrity.
Last year their integrity was challenged by activists who didn’t like a stand they took on some issue. They claimed that ACSH only touted their position because they received funding from some large corporation, in spite of the fact that the amount was very small, and compared to be huge take the greenies bring in every year it certainly was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. At any rate Elizabeth Whelan handled this in a way that I will never forget. She told the activists whom ACSH stood against that if they thought that their views could be swayed by funding; then fund ACSH and see what happens. She didn’t get a check.
I would like to recommend that everyone consider joining…… This link "Donate to ACSH" will take you to the appropriated page, and while there, take time to explore their site…..it is worth the trip.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
by Rich Kozlovich
Some time back a very good long time friend of mine accused me of not seeing the nuances of the issues we face. He stated; “You see things in strictly black and white. This one is an enemy, this one is a friend and there is no in between with you”. I told him that wasn’t true and that I actually understood the nuances and his comment was; “You think you understand them”.
Actually....., I think I understand them because I do understand them. I just don’t agree that we should have to constantly gray the facts and blur the truth while representing our industry.
• I believe that by accepting the nuances as truth we are actually accepting lies and publicity in place of facts and truth.
• I believe that when we do this we are giving aid and comfort to those that wish us ill.
• I believe that every time we give up something unnecessarily or inappropriately we are backing our industry into a wall.
• I believe that it is imperative that we recognize that we really do have enemies; that we must recognize them for what they are and deal with them accordingly.
• I believe that if everyone keeps turning reality into nuance, it becomes increasingly difficult to see reality and worse yet; to know what to do about it.
• I believe that it is important to understand the opposition’s views, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept them. There is a difference between seeing the nuances and thinking that this is the way things should be.
• Aren’t nuances the shadow of substance? What reality do we face when we make the shadows real and the substance shadow?
• I believer that some things really are right and some things really are wrong.
• I believe the color gray is the same color as fog.
In my opinion there has never been a social phenomenon more nuanced than Corporate Social Responsibility. What exactly is Corporate Social Responsibility you ask? This linkprovides a good explanation of this business phenomenon. After following the link and reading the infromation; here are some points to ponder.
1. If CSR is being promoted because these ideas are so stupid they can’t be passed through the normal regulatory or statutory systems, why would anyone agree to them? What is the nuance here? Those who adopt CSR impositions don’t’ see the nuances.
2. If some businesses are embracing this concept so as to get a financial edge over their competitors, are they prepared for the unintended consequences that will appear long term? What is the nuance here? They will sell facts and truth to look good and make a few dollars more! They are totally unaware or uncaring about the long term consequences. In an attempt to look good to the public through publicity over this (in effect declaring that all others are irresponsible) are they selling their integrity for 12 pieces of silver?
3. If businesses feel they can use this publicity for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant regulations and joining with the “self-appointed representatives of "global civil society," are they destroying “the foundations of a free society”? What is the nuance here?“By obscuring the inherent conflict between individualism and collectivism, the doctrine of corporate social responsibility subverts the institutions of a free society. As these institutions—including private property, the modern corporation, and the free market—are the foundations upon which business depends, business leaders do a great disservice to their own interests—and ours—when they acquiesce to the demands of a Greenpeace or to the flatteries of the anti-capitalist intellectual class.”(I only wished I had said that myself. RK)
This leads me to ask some pointed questions.
1. Isn’t CSR actually irresponsible social behavior?
2. What if becomes socially responsible for corporations to demand the elimination of pesticides. Who will be responsible for the lives it will cost.
3. What if it becomes socially responsible to demand we all give up our property rights?
4. What if it becomes socially responsible to all accept a 30% hike in taxes so money becomes available for “the common good”? Who will decide what is the common good?
5. Has this socialist style mentality ever succeeded anywhere in the world? Has this socialist style mentality eliminated corruption or has it exacerbated it?
6. If you disagree with CSR, should it be okay if CSR activists picket you out of business. (this includes just about everyone in the activist community no matter what they call themselves.)
7. What happens when all responsibility for decision making is placed in the hands of these activists? Isn’t that what eventually happens when people use Neville Chamberlain’s “policy of appeasement”.
8. Does appeasement actually appease the activists or will it make them bolder and more demanding?
9. What if it becomes socially responsible to pay everyone twice a much? This actually happened in Russia after the Communists took over and they went broke.
10. Who decides how much people are to be paid?
11. What about the stockholders concerns for profit? Does this kind of action make someone liable for civil or criminal action if money is lost because the corporation flew off on some social crusade? What if the business goes under? If these kinds of actions cause someone to lose investment profits should the employee making these decisions be fired? Should investors like this kind of activity? Should stockholders concerns be ignored in place of appeasing activists? Should someone be arrested for misuse of company funds?
12. My final question is this. Are the chemical companies who manufacture pesticides part and parcel of all of this gamesmanship to the detriment of our industry?
Good questions, don’t you think? Actually I have one more question; does understanding nuances become a catch phrase that stands for the corruption of thought and action?
Oh....there is one more question to my good friend. Have I provided enough nuances for you, or do you think I missed something?
Some time back a very good long time friend of mine accused me of not seeing the nuances of the issues we face. He stated; “You see things in strictly black and white. This one is an enemy, this one is a friend and there is no in between with you”. I told him that wasn’t true and that I actually understood the nuances and his comment was; “You think you understand them”.
Actually....., I think I understand them because I do understand them. I just don’t agree that we should have to constantly gray the facts and blur the truth while representing our industry.
• I believe that by accepting the nuances as truth we are actually accepting lies and publicity in place of facts and truth.
• I believe that when we do this we are giving aid and comfort to those that wish us ill.
• I believe that every time we give up something unnecessarily or inappropriately we are backing our industry into a wall.
• I believe that it is imperative that we recognize that we really do have enemies; that we must recognize them for what they are and deal with them accordingly.
• I believe that if everyone keeps turning reality into nuance, it becomes increasingly difficult to see reality and worse yet; to know what to do about it.
• I believe that it is important to understand the opposition’s views, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept them. There is a difference between seeing the nuances and thinking that this is the way things should be.
• Aren’t nuances the shadow of substance? What reality do we face when we make the shadows real and the substance shadow?
• I believer that some things really are right and some things really are wrong.
• I believe the color gray is the same color as fog.
In my opinion there has never been a social phenomenon more nuanced than Corporate Social Responsibility. What exactly is Corporate Social Responsibility you ask? This linkprovides a good explanation of this business phenomenon. After following the link and reading the infromation; here are some points to ponder.
1. If CSR is being promoted because these ideas are so stupid they can’t be passed through the normal regulatory or statutory systems, why would anyone agree to them? What is the nuance here? Those who adopt CSR impositions don’t’ see the nuances.
2. If some businesses are embracing this concept so as to get a financial edge over their competitors, are they prepared for the unintended consequences that will appear long term? What is the nuance here? They will sell facts and truth to look good and make a few dollars more! They are totally unaware or uncaring about the long term consequences. In an attempt to look good to the public through publicity over this (in effect declaring that all others are irresponsible) are they selling their integrity for 12 pieces of silver?
3. If businesses feel they can use this publicity for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant regulations and joining with the “self-appointed representatives of "global civil society," are they destroying “the foundations of a free society”? What is the nuance here?“By obscuring the inherent conflict between individualism and collectivism, the doctrine of corporate social responsibility subverts the institutions of a free society. As these institutions—including private property, the modern corporation, and the free market—are the foundations upon which business depends, business leaders do a great disservice to their own interests—and ours—when they acquiesce to the demands of a Greenpeace or to the flatteries of the anti-capitalist intellectual class.”(I only wished I had said that myself. RK)
This leads me to ask some pointed questions.
1. Isn’t CSR actually irresponsible social behavior?
2. What if becomes socially responsible for corporations to demand the elimination of pesticides. Who will be responsible for the lives it will cost.
3. What if it becomes socially responsible to demand we all give up our property rights?
4. What if it becomes socially responsible to all accept a 30% hike in taxes so money becomes available for “the common good”? Who will decide what is the common good?
5. Has this socialist style mentality ever succeeded anywhere in the world? Has this socialist style mentality eliminated corruption or has it exacerbated it?
6. If you disagree with CSR, should it be okay if CSR activists picket you out of business. (this includes just about everyone in the activist community no matter what they call themselves.)
7. What happens when all responsibility for decision making is placed in the hands of these activists? Isn’t that what eventually happens when people use Neville Chamberlain’s “policy of appeasement”.
8. Does appeasement actually appease the activists or will it make them bolder and more demanding?
9. What if it becomes socially responsible to pay everyone twice a much? This actually happened in Russia after the Communists took over and they went broke.
10. Who decides how much people are to be paid?
11. What about the stockholders concerns for profit? Does this kind of action make someone liable for civil or criminal action if money is lost because the corporation flew off on some social crusade? What if the business goes under? If these kinds of actions cause someone to lose investment profits should the employee making these decisions be fired? Should investors like this kind of activity? Should stockholders concerns be ignored in place of appeasing activists? Should someone be arrested for misuse of company funds?
12. My final question is this. Are the chemical companies who manufacture pesticides part and parcel of all of this gamesmanship to the detriment of our industry?
Good questions, don’t you think? Actually I have one more question; does understanding nuances become a catch phrase that stands for the corruption of thought and action?
Oh....there is one more question to my good friend. Have I provided enough nuances for you, or do you think I missed something?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
By, Rich Kozlovich
In the 1800’s there was no greater showman than P.T. Barnum. His flair for the extravagant dazzled the crowds. His museum in New York City was a “combination of zoo, museum, lecture hall, wax museum, theater and freak show. Barnum noticed that people were lingering too long at his exhibits. He posted signs indicating "This Way to the Egress". Not knowing that "Egress" was another word for "Exit", people followed the signs to what they assumed was a fascinating exhibit...and ended up outside”. If they weren’t done seeing what they wanted to see….they had to pay again.
I couldn't help but chuckle and shake my head at the thought of those who are directly responsible for this plague of bedbugs now wanting to find a solution through this big public relations fest. What better way to deflect attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess, themselves. P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this trompe l'oeil!
I followed Pete Grasso's Blog comments about this "summit", and kudos to Pete who did an excellent job. Separate breakout groups were created on the second day to outline suggestions as to what should be done in five categories:
In the 1800’s there was no greater showman than P.T. Barnum. His flair for the extravagant dazzled the crowds. His museum in New York City was a “combination of zoo, museum, lecture hall, wax museum, theater and freak show. Barnum noticed that people were lingering too long at his exhibits. He posted signs indicating "This Way to the Egress". Not knowing that "Egress" was another word for "Exit", people followed the signs to what they assumed was a fascinating exhibit...and ended up outside”. If they weren’t done seeing what they wanted to see….they had to pay again.
I couldn't help but chuckle and shake my head at the thought of those who are directly responsible for this plague of bedbugs now wanting to find a solution through this big public relations fest. What better way to deflect attention away from the real perpetrators of this mess, themselves. P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this trompe l'oeil!
I followed Pete Grasso's Blog comments about this "summit", and kudos to Pete who did an excellent job. Separate breakout groups were created on the second day to outline suggestions as to what should be done in five categories:
•
Research
• Role of Government
• Consumer Education and Communication
• Pest Management Professional's (PMP) Education and Training
• Role of Property Owners and Property Managers
• Role of Government
• Consumer Education and Communication
• Pest Management Professional's (PMP) Education and Training
• Role of Property Owners and Property Managers
Pete
listed the suggestions recognizing that there was bound to be some duplication.
There were; but even the duplicates were slightly different. Here is the
breakdown as I saw it, although some could slop over into other categories, and
someone could have easily created sub-categories while organizing the
suggestions, I wanted to simplify it, not complicate it further.
There were 34 suggestions that would expand the bureaucracy at every level of government, expand training and licensure requirements and potentially mandate IPM. There were 15 for expanded public information and who should be doing it, 10 for grant money for the professional grant chasers, 5 that would shift the blame, and 9 that actual had some worth, however….. no one blamed EPA. Oh yes, there was one who wanted to do this again and one who wanted to do this regularly. I have "condensed" the suggestions for the 34 regulatory expansion suggestions into some type of logical order as to what would occur if these "ideas" were to be implemented.
There were 34 suggestions that would expand the bureaucracy at every level of government, expand training and licensure requirements and potentially mandate IPM. There were 15 for expanded public information and who should be doing it, 10 for grant money for the professional grant chasers, 5 that would shift the blame, and 9 that actual had some worth, however….. no one blamed EPA. Oh yes, there was one who wanted to do this again and one who wanted to do this regularly. I have "condensed" the suggestions for the 34 regulatory expansion suggestions into some type of logical order as to what would occur if these "ideas" were to be implemented.
The
government needs to recognize bed bugs as a public health pest. Then the
government needs to form an inter-agency task force to address bed bugs,
involving all levels of government with a definition of each level’s role, with
a joint task force made up of the Environmental Protection Agency and The
Center for Disease Control to better coordinate these agencies and levels of
government.
They will then create a tracking system for better data from PMP feedback which will be the basis to justify the creation of a national bed bug foundation where professional pest controllers can report infestations to help create, and have access to a confidential database, and allow (or require) self-policing by PMPs to report misinformation, misapplication and the use of illegal products.
This will also act as a multi-agency Web site as a clearinghouse of bed bug information under the auspices of the EPA who will take the leadership role for all stakeholder parties; who will then form a committee or panel to explore adopting best practices and guidelines for the pest management industry drawing from previously developed materials.
They in turn will require states to set sanitary guidelines specifically for bed bugs and require that all local governments have consistent message/rules within local governments in line with nationwide training standards which will allow for a legislative bridge based on education, including legislation for disposal of infested bedding . In this way best practices can be harmonized and implemented over different jurisdictions.
In order for this to work at every level, voluntary standards should be established, or if necessary, imposed at a national level for accreditation for bed bug specialists, implement pesticide applicator certification for bed bugs, requiring a separate licensing for bed bug treatment, with continuing and specialized education opportunities for PMPs.
No pest controller will be allowed to treat for bedbugs without a certification program for professional pest controllers. This should be monitored by the National Pest Management Association who will provide training at all levels and create a separate, more stringent Quality Pro program that can initiate IPM standards, which should be mandated as soon as possible. All this will help people find qualified PMPs, which shall be encouraged through public education through an outreach program and corresponding web site which will be designed and maintained by the EPA and will carry standardized fact sheets with realistic treatment definitions that will support and promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The EPA will review bed bug efficacy protocols and report the results. This will then in turn create a need to hold mini bed bug summits in EPA regions.
They will then create a tracking system for better data from PMP feedback which will be the basis to justify the creation of a national bed bug foundation where professional pest controllers can report infestations to help create, and have access to a confidential database, and allow (or require) self-policing by PMPs to report misinformation, misapplication and the use of illegal products.
This will also act as a multi-agency Web site as a clearinghouse of bed bug information under the auspices of the EPA who will take the leadership role for all stakeholder parties; who will then form a committee or panel to explore adopting best practices and guidelines for the pest management industry drawing from previously developed materials.
They in turn will require states to set sanitary guidelines specifically for bed bugs and require that all local governments have consistent message/rules within local governments in line with nationwide training standards which will allow for a legislative bridge based on education, including legislation for disposal of infested bedding . In this way best practices can be harmonized and implemented over different jurisdictions.
In order for this to work at every level, voluntary standards should be established, or if necessary, imposed at a national level for accreditation for bed bug specialists, implement pesticide applicator certification for bed bugs, requiring a separate licensing for bed bug treatment, with continuing and specialized education opportunities for PMPs.
No pest controller will be allowed to treat for bedbugs without a certification program for professional pest controllers. This should be monitored by the National Pest Management Association who will provide training at all levels and create a separate, more stringent Quality Pro program that can initiate IPM standards, which should be mandated as soon as possible. All this will help people find qualified PMPs, which shall be encouraged through public education through an outreach program and corresponding web site which will be designed and maintained by the EPA and will carry standardized fact sheets with realistic treatment definitions that will support and promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The EPA will review bed bug efficacy protocols and report the results. This will then in turn create a need to hold mini bed bug summits in EPA regions.
When
organized in this manner...it almost sounds rational… even to me. The reality
is this; the EPA started this whole mess in 1972 when is was created by Richard
Nixon with the intent of banning DDT, irrespective of the fact that they didn’t
have the science to justify it, which William Doyle Ruckelshaus himself
admitted when he acknowledged that it was a political decision, not a science
based one. Technically, it didn’t much matter as we had a host of products in
our armory to defeat just about every pest that attacks man and his
environment. Philosophically it was devastating because DDT’s ban has been the
basis for every rationale that attempts to justify the elimination of all
pesticides and for every action taken by the greenies in and out of government
ever since.
Unfortunately, no one seemed to get the message then, and we amazingly can’t seem to get it now. The goal of the greenies and their acolytes at EPA is the elimination of pesticides. Fraudulent science, the invalid interpretation of science and theoretical health scares was used at EPA under Carol Browner in 1996 to justify the Food Quality Protection Act; that is how we lost chlorpyriphos and a host of other products that had been used safely for decades. That certainly should have been a huge wakeup call! It wasn’t for large number of pest controllers or for those in leadership positions around the country. IPM became the mantra leading up to “green” pest control within the industry.
What would have happened if it turned out the bedbugs were very real vectors for disease? Currently it is believed that they are not, but we do know that there are a host of vectors out there that only pesticides protect us from. If we continue down this path we aren’t just going to have “quality of life”issues, such as allergic reactions, and infections from scratching the bitten area; we are going to start having body counts. We need to stop this nonsense about “bedbug summits” as if this is going to fix anything.
The fact of the matter is that the structural pest control industry already knows how to kill bedbugs. We don't need specialized training, certification and licensure. This is a singular issue with a two -fold solution.
Unfortunately, no one seemed to get the message then, and we amazingly can’t seem to get it now. The goal of the greenies and their acolytes at EPA is the elimination of pesticides. Fraudulent science, the invalid interpretation of science and theoretical health scares was used at EPA under Carol Browner in 1996 to justify the Food Quality Protection Act; that is how we lost chlorpyriphos and a host of other products that had been used safely for decades. That certainly should have been a huge wakeup call! It wasn’t for large number of pest controllers or for those in leadership positions around the country. IPM became the mantra leading up to “green” pest control within the industry.
What would have happened if it turned out the bedbugs were very real vectors for disease? Currently it is believed that they are not, but we do know that there are a host of vectors out there that only pesticides protect us from. If we continue down this path we aren’t just going to have “quality of life”issues, such as allergic reactions, and infections from scratching the bitten area; we are going to start having body counts. We need to stop this nonsense about “bedbug summits” as if this is going to fix anything.
The fact of the matter is that the structural pest control industry already knows how to kill bedbugs. We don't need specialized training, certification and licensure. This is a singular issue with a two -fold solution.
I. WE
NEED CHEMISTRY THAT WORKS!
a. Place
the blame for this problem at the feet of those responsible, the EPA and the
green movement
b. Return products that work or generate new ones
b. Return products that work or generate new ones
Everything else is window dressing, misdirection and activity as a substitute for accomplishment. Of the 9 common sense suggestions, two were for the return of old products and easier registration for new ones. Currently it costs about three hundred million dollars (that is $300,000,000) to bring a pesticide to market and structural pest control doesn’t use enough (anywhere near enough) to justify that cost and the patents only last so long. I have been told that they last for seven years and others have said that they last twenty. I don’t know which is correct, but either way….they have to sell an awful lot of pesticide to make up that R&D money.
That leaves these solutions; return products or change the labels of current products. All of that other costly, intrusive and ineffectual claptrap will be unnecessary. However, I do not believe that will happen if we do not fix the blame for this plague right where it belongs. We need to point the finger of blame right at the EPA. We need to expose their irrational and misanthropic regulations along with the irrational and misanthropic actions of the greenies that drive and support them.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
In 1989 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) released a documentary called, Big Fears, Little Risks. This was very well received by the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries. Back in those days I always “knew” where our industry stood. We “knew” that what we did was saving lives and protecting property with pesticides. Overall, people in agricultural “knew” that they were saving lives by feeding the world by growing and protecting their crops with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers. We “knew” that the activists were wrong and needed to be stood up to and needed to be challenged. Somehow that has all changed. It was subtle and insidious, but greenies now infest our industries, and many times in positions of responsibility.
Many of these people, fresh out of school, “knew” that pesticides were evil and needed to be eliminated. They “knew” that IPM was the answer...for a while. When that didn’t eliminate pesticides, then they “knew” that we needed to start performing “sustainable” pest control that was “green", terms that are so indefinable that they can be defined and redefined to meet any new criteria the greenies want. They apparently accept every irrational scare promoted by the greenies. Whether it is asthma, endocrine disruption, cancer, or a host of other scares, they seem to embrace them and promote the idea that they are true.
Recently I attended a recertification class where the speaker presented slides that showed the whole list of irrational, theoretical scares promoted by the greenies. I challenged this as unscientific. He and I have had this conversation before, and even though he agreed with everything that I said…..the slide remains part of the training. Why?
It came as quite a shock to me when I came to the realization that there already was a cadre of greenies within the industry, hiding right in our midst, out in the open. As a result; things have certainly changed philosophically in pest control.
The real question is this; has reality changed? Do we really need to "go green"? What does it really mean? Have we protected society for over sixty years or do we really believe that we been killing society and the environment? If we are doing so many bad things, why then are more people living longer healthier lives than ever before. Do we really believe that getting rid of pesticides won't have seriously negative consequences? Why do we really “need” to go green?
I have been told by people that should know better that, “everyone knows what IPM is”! Really? Then why are there so many definitions? Why do state legislative bodies require that someone provide them with a definition for IPM? We have lost sight of reality in order to become acceptable to the activists and their latest philosophical flavor of the day, and that flavor being“green”.
I always remembered the film, Big Fears, Little Risks, and I wanted to get a copy so that I could harvest some of the quotes from men like Bruce Ames for an article I was working on. I sent out a request to a large number of people who might still have a copy. Some said that they would look and if they still had it they would send it to me. One finally did; I would like to thank Ted Bruesch of Lipha Tech for his generosity. A number of people in my network informed me that I could download it from the ACSH web site. That was embarrassing, since I am a member and didn’t know it was there.
Well, twenty years has gone by and it seems that the irrational thinking is greater than ever. I will be sixty three soon and I have watched the world changing in ways that I would have never dreamed possible. I see people being washed back and forth with every new philosophical flavor of the day like the waves of the sea being dashed against the rocks by the wind. I feel more and more like the voice in the wilderness. Big Fears, Little Risks was roundly praised in 1989. I really think that it would be a good time for everyone to review this documentary once again. We can never return to Camelot, but it would be nice to remember who we used to be; because if we fail to recognize who we were, how can be realize who we will become? Or more important; who we should become!
To go to the download page, click here and click the title - Big Fears, Little Risks and then follow the directions. You might consider becoming a member of ACSH. Donate here
In 1989 the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) released a documentary called, Big Fears, Little Risks. This was very well received by the pesticide application, distribution and manufacturing industries. Back in those days I always “knew” where our industry stood. We “knew” that what we did was saving lives and protecting property with pesticides. Overall, people in agricultural “knew” that they were saving lives by feeding the world by growing and protecting their crops with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and chemical fertilizers. We “knew” that the activists were wrong and needed to be stood up to and needed to be challenged. Somehow that has all changed. It was subtle and insidious, but greenies now infest our industries, and many times in positions of responsibility.
Many of these people, fresh out of school, “knew” that pesticides were evil and needed to be eliminated. They “knew” that IPM was the answer...for a while. When that didn’t eliminate pesticides, then they “knew” that we needed to start performing “sustainable” pest control that was “green", terms that are so indefinable that they can be defined and redefined to meet any new criteria the greenies want. They apparently accept every irrational scare promoted by the greenies. Whether it is asthma, endocrine disruption, cancer, or a host of other scares, they seem to embrace them and promote the idea that they are true.
Recently I attended a recertification class where the speaker presented slides that showed the whole list of irrational, theoretical scares promoted by the greenies. I challenged this as unscientific. He and I have had this conversation before, and even though he agreed with everything that I said…..the slide remains part of the training. Why?
It came as quite a shock to me when I came to the realization that there already was a cadre of greenies within the industry, hiding right in our midst, out in the open. As a result; things have certainly changed philosophically in pest control.
The real question is this; has reality changed? Do we really need to "go green"? What does it really mean? Have we protected society for over sixty years or do we really believe that we been killing society and the environment? If we are doing so many bad things, why then are more people living longer healthier lives than ever before. Do we really believe that getting rid of pesticides won't have seriously negative consequences? Why do we really “need” to go green?
I have been told by people that should know better that, “everyone knows what IPM is”! Really? Then why are there so many definitions? Why do state legislative bodies require that someone provide them with a definition for IPM? We have lost sight of reality in order to become acceptable to the activists and their latest philosophical flavor of the day, and that flavor being“green”.
I always remembered the film, Big Fears, Little Risks, and I wanted to get a copy so that I could harvest some of the quotes from men like Bruce Ames for an article I was working on. I sent out a request to a large number of people who might still have a copy. Some said that they would look and if they still had it they would send it to me. One finally did; I would like to thank Ted Bruesch of Lipha Tech for his generosity. A number of people in my network informed me that I could download it from the ACSH web site. That was embarrassing, since I am a member and didn’t know it was there.
Well, twenty years has gone by and it seems that the irrational thinking is greater than ever. I will be sixty three soon and I have watched the world changing in ways that I would have never dreamed possible. I see people being washed back and forth with every new philosophical flavor of the day like the waves of the sea being dashed against the rocks by the wind. I feel more and more like the voice in the wilderness. Big Fears, Little Risks was roundly praised in 1989. I really think that it would be a good time for everyone to review this documentary once again. We can never return to Camelot, but it would be nice to remember who we used to be; because if we fail to recognize who we were, how can be realize who we will become? Or more important; who we should become!
To go to the download page, click here and click the title - Big Fears, Little Risks and then follow the directions. You might consider becoming a member of ACSH. Donate here
Sunday, May 10, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
On April 14th and 15th of this year the EPA hosted something that they called the Bedbug Summit, which “drew almost 300 state and federal regulatory, public health, and housing officials, academics, landlords/property managers, pest professionals, and other key stakeholders”
On April 19th, 2009 I published a critique of EPA’s “Bedbug Summit”, called Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment, which clearly outlined what could only be called a great public relations deception and a farce. That is, if your goal is the control of bedbugs. If the goal was to misdirect, deceive and justify the creation of a massive, costly and ineffectual multilayered bureaucracy and promote ineffectual pest control programs such as IPM, then it was a smashing success. Quite frankly, it disturbed me to realize that for some reason I didn’t connect the dots at the time between this and the Butterfield bill. I know…I know…there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
Currently there is a bill introduced by Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina on May 5th, 2009 that the NPMA officially supports and has asked everyone in the structural pest control industry to openly support. The Butterfield bill is entitled, "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009", and based on what is in this bill that title is a misnomer.
NPMA believes that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings. Specifically, the bill:
On April 14th and 15th of this year the EPA hosted something that they called the Bedbug Summit, which “drew almost 300 state and federal regulatory, public health, and housing officials, academics, landlords/property managers, pest professionals, and other key stakeholders”
On April 19th, 2009 I published a critique of EPA’s “Bedbug Summit”, called Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment, which clearly outlined what could only be called a great public relations deception and a farce. That is, if your goal is the control of bedbugs. If the goal was to misdirect, deceive and justify the creation of a massive, costly and ineffectual multilayered bureaucracy and promote ineffectual pest control programs such as IPM, then it was a smashing success. Quite frankly, it disturbed me to realize that for some reason I didn’t connect the dots at the time between this and the Butterfield bill. I know…I know…there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
Currently there is a bill introduced by Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina on May 5th, 2009 that the NPMA officially supports and has asked everyone in the structural pest control industry to openly support. The Butterfield bill is entitled, "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009", and based on what is in this bill that title is a misnomer.
NPMA believes that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings. Specifically, the bill:
I. Establishes a state
bed bug inspection grant program within the Department of Commerce for states
to use to help fund inspections of lodging facilities;
II. Expands an existing grant program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services that already provides funds to states for cockroach and rodent control to be used for bed bug prevention and control;
III. Requires public housing agencies to include in annual plans,required by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, measures necessary for the management of bed bugs, similar to their current responsibility to manage cockroaches; and
IV. Directs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the public health implications of bed bugs.”
II. Expands an existing grant program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services that already provides funds to states for cockroach and rodent control to be used for bed bug prevention and control;
III. Requires public housing agencies to include in annual plans,required by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, measures necessary for the management of bed bugs, similar to their current responsibility to manage cockroaches; and
IV. Directs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the public health implications of bed bugs.”
NPMA goes on to say that “His legislation will grant state and local governments, in concert with the professional pest management industry, the necessary resources to more effectively and aggressively manage bed bug infestations.”
Before I go any further I wish to state for the record that I am not attacking any individuals at NPMA, their integrity or their work ethic. I have stated this in the past and I will restate it again….these people work and they work hard and they believe what they are doing is in the long term best interests of the industry. In their defense they believe that this bill is going to pass, whether we are on board or not, and in the long run this will give the pest control industry some positioning on these matters for the economic future of our industry. It is that judgment and view that I wish to challenge.
Apparently Congressman Butterfield believes that the first step in eradicating bedbugs is to create a grant program administered by the Commerce Department to inspect hotels and motels for bedbugs in each state. And that each state’s hotels will have 20 percent of their rooms inspected each and every year. Those inspections will be conducted by “trained inspection personnel” and money will be provided to “train the inspectors” and they shall do the following under this bill:
I. inspections are
conducted by individuals who meet the minimum competency standard or requirement
for inspecting or treating rooms in lodging facilities for bed bugs, as adopted
by the State agency charged with regulating pest
management
II. conduct inspections of lodging facilities for cimex lectularius, including transportation, lodging and meal expenses for inspectors;
III. train inspection personnel;
IV. contract with a commercial applicator, as defined in section 2(e) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(e)), to inspect and treat lodging facilities for cimex lectularius;
V. educate the proprietors and staff of lodging establishments about methods to prevent and eradicate cimex lectularius.
management
II. conduct inspections of lodging facilities for cimex lectularius, including transportation, lodging and meal expenses for inspectors;
III. train inspection personnel;
IV. contract with a commercial applicator, as defined in section 2(e) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(e)), to inspect and treat lodging facilities for cimex lectularius;
V. educate the proprietors and staff of lodging establishments about methods to prevent and eradicate cimex lectularius.
And what will this little program cost. Fifty million dollars a year from 2010 to 2013! First off, Congress didn’t find anything that we didn’t already know. The fact of the matter is that taxpayer money is going to be wasted; and for what will the taxpayer’s money be wasted to the tune of fifty million dollars a year? To inspect rooms for bedbugs! We already have trained inspectors….they are called exterminators and they do it for free. They already know what to tell the owners and maintenance people and they certainly know what bedbugs look like and don’t need any further training. We already have health departments requiring treatment. We already have laws in each state that determines who can make those treatments. So, why is there a need to train“new” inspectors and who will these “new” inspectors be?
I don’t believe for a minute that pest controllers will be used for these inspections, except possibly at the beginning, no matter what it says about standards. This grant money is going to be used up by state Health departments, State Universities, State Agricultural departments or whoever is in charge of pesticide regulations in the state in question and they will set the standard to accommodate themselves. And because grant money will be available, they won’t have to take the inexpensive way out and use PCO standards. This money will go to state agencies, and I believe to the Health Departments, which will make them secondary de facto regulators of the pest control industry in their states.
This is nothing more than window dressing, creating a gigantic multilayered bureaucracy with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Center for Disease Control and state agencies all over the country. Bureaucratic activity as a substitute for accomplishment, and when was the last time you saw a bureaucracy disappear?
Nowhere does it discuss the real issue; The EPA’s responsibility for this mess and the introduction of chemistry that works. This bill will spend fifty million each year and accomplish nothing, even if hotels are treated more often. Bedbugs will still be infesting homes, other businesses, busses, trains, cabs, schools…etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, and where are the requirements for tools that will bring about proper control?
I. Inspections will not eliminate bedbugs.
II. It may fix the blame, but it won’t fix bedbugs.
III. Furthermore, I believe this will lay the ground work for more unnecessary regulations, unnecessary documented training sessions and added licensure.
IV. If that happens, and based on past history, I believe eventually that is where the grant money will go and the requirements will increase.
II. It may fix the blame, but it won’t fix bedbugs.
III. Furthermore, I believe this will lay the ground work for more unnecessary regulations, unnecessary documented training sessions and added licensure.
IV. If that happens, and based on past history, I believe eventually that is where the grant money will go and the requirements will increase.
This isn’t leadership nor will it manage bed bugs aggressively, effectively or otherwise. We need chemistry that works. This is a singular problem with a twofold solution.
First and foremost, we have to define the real problem. We need to outline the cause. Both of those are easy. We know the EPA is a fault for this plague, we need place the blame right at their feet. We need chemistry that works, either by returning old chemistry, changing labels of chemistry that is currently available or give us new chemistry that works. (NPMA is currently working with EPA on this matter)
Everything else is a waste of money, energy, time and only gives the impression of accomplishment where very little actually exists. There is nothing in this bill that provides for anything that isn’t already being done….except for getting the fifty million dollars.
To perceive is “to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses, to discern, envision or understand. “My "perceptions" of what is wrong with this bill were easily identified because they should have been obvious to the most casual observer.
So then, what are the “positive aspects” of this Bill?
I. Fifty million dollars is going to be spent every year, and
who knows how much more in the future, and yet bedbugs will not be curtailed
because of it.
Grant chasers will by positively impacted. That doesn’t seem very positive to me
except for those getting the money. Those with bedbugs will still have them.
II. A great deal of bureaucratic welfare is going to be created and still bedbugs are not going to be curtailed. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the bureaucrats.
III. Legislators will give the impression that they are doing something worthwhile to stop this plague caused by the EPA. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the legislators who will give the impression that they are actually doing something.
IV. The real cause of the problem isn’t identified. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the EPA who is responsible.
V. No new directives are part of this bill that requires EPA or anyone else to approve chemistry that works. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the pest controllers who will be getting large sums of money to control this plague with inadequate tools, and even if the tools needed to eradicate bedbugs are returned, this bureaucratic layer cake will never disappear.
Grant chasers will by positively impacted. That doesn’t seem very positive to me
except for those getting the money. Those with bedbugs will still have them.
II. A great deal of bureaucratic welfare is going to be created and still bedbugs are not going to be curtailed. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the bureaucrats.
III. Legislators will give the impression that they are doing something worthwhile to stop this plague caused by the EPA. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the legislators who will give the impression that they are actually doing something.
IV. The real cause of the problem isn’t identified. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the EPA who is responsible.
V. No new directives are part of this bill that requires EPA or anyone else to approve chemistry that works. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the pest controllers who will be getting large sums of money to control this plague with inadequate tools, and even if the tools needed to eradicate bedbugs are returned, this bureaucratic layer cake will never disappear.
What about the “general public”? How will they benefit? And please don’t tell me how better communications will make a difference in their lives. That isn’t even a logical fallacy….that would be a blatant falsehood. The claim that this “proposed legislation …will be beneficial for all parties, including pest management professionals, regulatory agencies and the general public” is a fallacy of composition.
There is only one party that we should be focusing on. Not pest controllers, not regulators, and especially not regulators. The public…. It is the public and the public only who should be our one and only concern. In no way will this bill alleviate the public’s suffering. That and only that should be our concern. Everything else is horsepucky!
I would like to share a quote with everyone that, although I’m not sure, I believe that came from Thomas Sowell.
“Life is all about tides. There are those who catch the tide and those who
row against the tide. Those rowing against the tide will always go in that
direction no matter which way the tide is moving. The rest have no direction and
will simply follow the tide. Those who row against the tide are in better shape
than those who go with the tide. Not only physically, but intellectually,
emotionally and psychologically! When the tide changes direction, and it will,
guess who will be in the lead? “
Sunday, June 28, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
I originally ran this article on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 in my original blog. There has been a lot of activity in our industry lately. In Ohio and at the national level! Perhaps that is why this article kept coming into my mind. Nothing in particular that I can point my finger at....it just kept nagging at me. So with some small changes I have chosen to re-run it. RK
Updated 11-06-11. RK
Recently I have had an e-mail debate with someone (who will not permit me to publish the debate) who kept accusing me of not being an original thinker. It was a point I was more than willing to concede, since I am more concerned with factual thinking versus original thinking. This person seemed to think this was the linchpin of his logic, because he kept making it over and over again. His last comment was that no matter how hard I tried I was never going to be an original thinker. No matter how many times I agreed with him he kept irrationally making the charge as if it was some new and terrible insight that I should care about. This silly debate did however trigger a series of questions in my mind.
I originally ran this article on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 in my original blog. There has been a lot of activity in our industry lately. In Ohio and at the national level! Perhaps that is why this article kept coming into my mind. Nothing in particular that I can point my finger at....it just kept nagging at me. So with some small changes I have chosen to re-run it. RK
Updated 11-06-11. RK
Recently I have had an e-mail debate with someone (who will not permit me to publish the debate) who kept accusing me of not being an original thinker. It was a point I was more than willing to concede, since I am more concerned with factual thinking versus original thinking. This person seemed to think this was the linchpin of his logic, because he kept making it over and over again. His last comment was that no matter how hard I tried I was never going to be an original thinker. No matter how many times I agreed with him he kept irrationally making the charge as if it was some new and terrible insight that I should care about. This silly debate did however trigger a series of questions in my mind.
1. What is an original thinker?
2. What constitutes original thinking?
3. Who decides what is original?
4. What makes original thinking so important?
5. Does original thinking have to be factual?
6. Is original thinking more important than factual thinking?
7. Is original thinking only philosophical and is philosophical thinking the only original thoughts?
8. If original thinking is only philosophical, why should it be taken seriously?
9. Is original thinking contrary to traditional thinking?
10. Is original thinking contrary to conventional thinking?
11. Is original thinking actually conventional thinking?
12. If it becomes conventional and or traditional thinking is it original anymore?
13. Can original thinking become conventional or traditional thinking?
14. How often do we think originally?
15. If we think originally all the time, how many times can we be right?
16. Is original thinking actually retread old thinking couched in new terms?
17. Are new thinking and original thinking the same thing? Is it neither?
18. Lastly, is there really such a thing as original thinking?
2. What constitutes original thinking?
3. Who decides what is original?
4. What makes original thinking so important?
5. Does original thinking have to be factual?
6. Is original thinking more important than factual thinking?
7. Is original thinking only philosophical and is philosophical thinking the only original thoughts?
8. If original thinking is only philosophical, why should it be taken seriously?
9. Is original thinking contrary to traditional thinking?
10. Is original thinking contrary to conventional thinking?
11. Is original thinking actually conventional thinking?
12. If it becomes conventional and or traditional thinking is it original anymore?
13. Can original thinking become conventional or traditional thinking?
14. How often do we think originally?
15. If we think originally all the time, how many times can we be right?
16. Is original thinking actually retread old thinking couched in new terms?
17. Are new thinking and original thinking the same thing? Is it neither?
18. Lastly, is there really such a thing as original thinking?
I was interested in what others thought about these points and sent these questions out to my Green Notes net. The first respondent was Frank Gasperini who worked at RISE at the time. Frank has graciously allowed me to reprint his comments.
Rich,
Not a direct answer, but a few Saturday morning 'musings". Original thinking is a wonderful and important thing, our world would not be the same without it, however if you think about "original thinkers" and the product of their ideas through reading history, you will find that the so called "original thinker" often completely misunderstood or failed to recognize the significance of his work-product--- and--- that those of us who embrace the concept of "Innovative Imitation" tend to be the ones who not only thrive and profit, but present humankind with the real benefits of the "original thinker's" work. This does not in any way denigrate the "original thinker", but it certainly does justify and elevate the role of the "innovative imitator".
Remember the old adage about pioneers--- 'the pioneer is the one likely to take the arrows, the pilgrim who follows ends up developing and owning the farm'. I once worked for the company that invented Gortex, but while they believed it to be a wonderful and "elegant" discovery, did not see any real value for it and thus "spun it off" to some ex-employees. I bet they wish they had kept that product--- but they invented it, failed to capitalize on its value because they only wanted to "original" things with it, not use it to do a better job of "old" things, and certainly not to "copy" anything someone else may have thought of.
There is an OLD "Harvard Business Review" classic article titled "Innovative Imitation" (mid 1970s?). It discussed in detail how innovators, 'pure researchers', and companies 'long on science and technology, but short on adaptability and willingness to imitate' end up inventing wonderful ideas that someone else profits from after they go belly-up. The old concept of 'if we didn't invent it (original thinking), we are not interested in it almost killed American industry at one point--- do you recall any "original thinking" from "Japan, Inc."? No, they took the best ideas developed by the world's "original thinkers" and improved and simplified them to fill the needs of real people!
Well, enough of a rant. I no longer consider myself a scientist, I am no longer interested in "elegant, or original thinking" for its own sake--- I am interested in ideas that make the lives of people easier and better, that protect people and the environment from harm, and whose benefits outweigh the risks. And, yes I am willing to take risks as long as they are outweighed by the benefits.
Frank
Not a direct answer, but a few Saturday morning 'musings". Original thinking is a wonderful and important thing, our world would not be the same without it, however if you think about "original thinkers" and the product of their ideas through reading history, you will find that the so called "original thinker" often completely misunderstood or failed to recognize the significance of his work-product--- and--- that those of us who embrace the concept of "Innovative Imitation" tend to be the ones who not only thrive and profit, but present humankind with the real benefits of the "original thinker's" work. This does not in any way denigrate the "original thinker", but it certainly does justify and elevate the role of the "innovative imitator".
Remember the old adage about pioneers--- 'the pioneer is the one likely to take the arrows, the pilgrim who follows ends up developing and owning the farm'. I once worked for the company that invented Gortex, but while they believed it to be a wonderful and "elegant" discovery, did not see any real value for it and thus "spun it off" to some ex-employees. I bet they wish they had kept that product--- but they invented it, failed to capitalize on its value because they only wanted to "original" things with it, not use it to do a better job of "old" things, and certainly not to "copy" anything someone else may have thought of.
There is an OLD "Harvard Business Review" classic article titled "Innovative Imitation" (mid 1970s?). It discussed in detail how innovators, 'pure researchers', and companies 'long on science and technology, but short on adaptability and willingness to imitate' end up inventing wonderful ideas that someone else profits from after they go belly-up. The old concept of 'if we didn't invent it (original thinking), we are not interested in it almost killed American industry at one point--- do you recall any "original thinking" from "Japan, Inc."? No, they took the best ideas developed by the world's "original thinkers" and improved and simplified them to fill the needs of real people!
Well, enough of a rant. I no longer consider myself a scientist, I am no longer interested in "elegant, or original thinking" for its own sake--- I am interested in ideas that make the lives of people easier and better, that protect people and the environment from harm, and whose benefits outweigh the risks. And, yes I am willing to take risks as long as they are outweighed by the benefits.
Frank
Since I
had some errands to run I had time to think about what all was said, I came to
the conclusion that there are really two types of original thinkers.
The first represent what I call the “nuts and bolts” thinkers. These are the people that actually come up with products and services that benefit society. This type absolutely relies on truthful information. The success is in the facts. These are people that are the “doers, and builders rather than the vandals and vacant philosophers”.
The second type of original thinker is what I call the “ideological” thinkers. These people rely on concepts and philosophy that may or may not be factual. History is replete with these types of individuals. They have the tendency to adopt the attitude, “I am going to get the truth out there and I don’t care how many lies I have to tell”.
The 20th century has had more than its share of these “ideological thinkers”. (Please view this 11-04-11 article written by Ellis Washington entitled,Alfred Kinsey's sexual revolution, where he discusses many of these "original thinkers"! RK)
Marx started a philosophical political movement that was the basis for socialism and communism. Among the great murderers of the 20th century were Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Pot Pol. It has been estimated these socialist/communists (Hitler was a socialist by the way) original thinkers killed over 100 million people.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey under the guise of science set patterns of behavior into motion that has had serious social consequences ever since. Because of them society could now justify why it was acceptable to abandon values that are absolutely essential for maintaining a stable society.
Rachel Carson can be directly blamed for the death of millions as a result of her work to eliminate DDT. Although “junk science” has always existed (snake oil salesmen are a good example) and was practiced by the above mentioned people, Carson’s greatest achievement is that her success as a junk scientist was so profound she could reasonably be called the mother of modern junk science. Her acolytes have made it policy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of original thinkers in the 20th century who caused devastation in their wake. Sadly, if you are to believe the reports of their personal lives there is every indication these people all had serious emotional problems and no affection for the traditional values they set out to destroy, nor did they have a deep attachment to facts, especially those facts that are not in harmony with their brand of “original thinking”.
Consistency is somewhat of an alien concept for them also. The first Earth Day the greenies screamed that humanity faced “a new ice age”; and the reason? Industrial pollution in the atmosphere! Today they scream “global warming” and the reason; Industrial pollution in the atmosphere.
Con artists and “ideological thinkers” have a great deal in common. Call it a shell game, three or card Monte or for that matter the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accord or whatever works to fool the public, it’s all the same. Is this really original? Both of these international agreements are based on science that was dubious at best at the very beginning and as more current information comes to light it appears to be wrong.
Using misinformation to attain the goals of power and money is nothing new. The tools and names of those tools may change over time, but it is still about power and money. There is nothing original about that at all. That bodes well the question; is there really any “original thinking” if it doesn’t produce products and services to make life better?
I think the phrase “original thinker” is over used. When people use it as a condemnation of those that disagree with them, it is a cop out so as to not answer the challenges to their “ideological thinking”. It is a form of intimidation that says; “you had better not disagree with me or you are a backward thinker”, or as I was recently called..."a flat Earther" because of my views on IPM in structural pest control
I have concluded that in areas of ideology and philosophy there are no original thinkers, no original thoughts and no original outcomes. It turns out there really isn’t anything new under the sun. The fact is that those that proclaim they are original thinkers have in reality become a herd of non-conformists being washed back and forth by the latest philosophical flavor of the day. They are a bunch “self perpetuating head nodders sitting in an echo chamber of self congratulations” who aggrandize themselves by calling themselves global problem solvers. For ideological thinking to become original thinking it must be just as concerned with facts as “nuts and bolts thinking”. Otherwise it is just three card Monte.
For those that would accuse me of not being an original thinker, I say - Thank You!
The first represent what I call the “nuts and bolts” thinkers. These are the people that actually come up with products and services that benefit society. This type absolutely relies on truthful information. The success is in the facts. These are people that are the “doers, and builders rather than the vandals and vacant philosophers”.
The second type of original thinker is what I call the “ideological” thinkers. These people rely on concepts and philosophy that may or may not be factual. History is replete with these types of individuals. They have the tendency to adopt the attitude, “I am going to get the truth out there and I don’t care how many lies I have to tell”.
The 20th century has had more than its share of these “ideological thinkers”. (Please view this 11-04-11 article written by Ellis Washington entitled,Alfred Kinsey's sexual revolution, where he discusses many of these "original thinkers"! RK)
Marx started a philosophical political movement that was the basis for socialism and communism. Among the great murderers of the 20th century were Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Pot Pol. It has been estimated these socialist/communists (Hitler was a socialist by the way) original thinkers killed over 100 million people.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey under the guise of science set patterns of behavior into motion that has had serious social consequences ever since. Because of them society could now justify why it was acceptable to abandon values that are absolutely essential for maintaining a stable society.
Rachel Carson can be directly blamed for the death of millions as a result of her work to eliminate DDT. Although “junk science” has always existed (snake oil salesmen are a good example) and was practiced by the above mentioned people, Carson’s greatest achievement is that her success as a junk scientist was so profound she could reasonably be called the mother of modern junk science. Her acolytes have made it policy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of original thinkers in the 20th century who caused devastation in their wake. Sadly, if you are to believe the reports of their personal lives there is every indication these people all had serious emotional problems and no affection for the traditional values they set out to destroy, nor did they have a deep attachment to facts, especially those facts that are not in harmony with their brand of “original thinking”.
Consistency is somewhat of an alien concept for them also. The first Earth Day the greenies screamed that humanity faced “a new ice age”; and the reason? Industrial pollution in the atmosphere! Today they scream “global warming” and the reason; Industrial pollution in the atmosphere.
Con artists and “ideological thinkers” have a great deal in common. Call it a shell game, three or card Monte or for that matter the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accord or whatever works to fool the public, it’s all the same. Is this really original? Both of these international agreements are based on science that was dubious at best at the very beginning and as more current information comes to light it appears to be wrong.
Using misinformation to attain the goals of power and money is nothing new. The tools and names of those tools may change over time, but it is still about power and money. There is nothing original about that at all. That bodes well the question; is there really any “original thinking” if it doesn’t produce products and services to make life better?
I think the phrase “original thinker” is over used. When people use it as a condemnation of those that disagree with them, it is a cop out so as to not answer the challenges to their “ideological thinking”. It is a form of intimidation that says; “you had better not disagree with me or you are a backward thinker”, or as I was recently called..."a flat Earther" because of my views on IPM in structural pest control
I have concluded that in areas of ideology and philosophy there are no original thinkers, no original thoughts and no original outcomes. It turns out there really isn’t anything new under the sun. The fact is that those that proclaim they are original thinkers have in reality become a herd of non-conformists being washed back and forth by the latest philosophical flavor of the day. They are a bunch “self perpetuating head nodders sitting in an echo chamber of self congratulations” who aggrandize themselves by calling themselves global problem solvers. For ideological thinking to become original thinking it must be just as concerned with facts as “nuts and bolts thinking”. Otherwise it is just three card Monte.
For those that would accuse me of not being an original thinker, I say - Thank You!
"Some ideas seem so plausible that they can fail nine times
in a row and still be believed the tenth time. Other ideas seem so implausible
that they can succeed nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth
time." - Thomas Sowell
June 28, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
Did you ever have a SHAZAM moment? All of a sudden you get this flash of insight…. SHAZAM ….all of a sudden we understand something that we have been working on mentally for some time, maybe even years. As I grow older I find that this happens much more often than in years gone by. How does that happen? I can tell you that age makes up a part of it, because clearly the brain’s abilities change as we grow older. I read James A. Michener’s book “The Source” when I was 19 and enjoyed it. I read it again when I was 30 and understood it.
The ability to draw correct conclusions from incomplete data is a work of the brain that is a very necessary gift, but there still has to be a reason for it. Everyone has this ability in varying degrees, but are we capable of training our minds to do it better? I believe so! I believe that this is done by absorbing a great deal of information and thinking a great deal about a great many small things. All of this is being filed and correlated by the brain without any conscious effort on our part. Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. A bit here, a bit there and all of a sudden..SHAZAM... you have the whole story with the informational gaps filled in automatically. How large those gaps are depends on the individual. That at least was my analysis of what was happening.
Scientists have always been interested in what they call Eureka moments. I recently read an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 19th entitled “A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight -Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain’s Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming”.
The article outlined some examples such as Archimedes discovering how to calculate density and volume while taking a bath. Sir Isaac Newton allegedly discovered the law of universal gravity by being hit on the head by an apple, Descartes developed what is now known as coordinate geometry by watching flies, Einstein was thinking about trains and lightening when the idea of special relativity flashed into his head and Tesla was walking with a cane when he first thought of alternating current.
They report that there is a difference between analytical thinking and insightful thinking and “daydreaming” is the key. “Kalina Christoff of the University of British Columbia on Vancouver makes the point that the “mind wandering is a much more active state that we ever imagined, much more active than during reasoning with a complex problem.” She suspects that the flypaper of an unfocused mind may trap new ideas unexpected and associations more effectively than methodical reasoning. That may create the mental framework for new ideas. You can see regions of these networks becoming active just prior to people arriving at an insight.”
No one really knows what triggers SHAZAM moments, but reflection, meditation, daydreaming, or whatever you may wish to call it, allows the mind to work unhindered by structure. The brain can’t work on anything if there isn’t anything there to work on though. Reading may cause eye trouble, but the lack of reading definitely causes ignorance.
Another article that caught my eye in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Thursday, June 25th was another example of why it is impossible to deal with or please the greenies.
It appears there’s a 58 foot high dam on the Cuyahoga River near Akron, Ohio called the Gorge Metro Dam. A company wants to turn this small dam into a small hydroelectric power plant that will serve about 2,000 homes. Green...right? The dam is already there...right? All that is required is to alter it a bit by putting the plant there and create access roads to it...right...how green can you be? Well…that is the rub.
The project is being stopped by the Ohio EPA and the Summit County Metro Parks and about 20 other groups who claim the dam serves no useful purpose, impairs water quality and prevents fish from moving upstream, so therefore the dam should be torn down. Furthermore, the project would require clearing four acres of part for a new road and the plant itself and that would ”potentially endanger plant species”.
I thought that was really interesting because when they stocked Lake Erie with Coho salmon and they went upriver they died…on someone else's property, and really made a huge stink. Without creating next year’s brood because the water quality is natually unsuitable for reproduction. What about other fish. Who cares? They aren’t salmon and will adapt.
It gets better. Remember this is a “renewable” energy source to 2,000 homes. That also is the rub because it is “only” 2,000 homes. What if it was for 200,000 homes? They would then say that the project was entirely too big versus entirely too small. It gets better. They refuse to even allow them to conduct an environmental impact study to “demonstrate the benign nature of the project”.
There is no green that is green enough to satisfy those who are “green”.I wonder if there is anything green enough to satisfy those who are insane. Oh wait...SHAZAM...They are green!
Did you ever have a SHAZAM moment? All of a sudden you get this flash of insight…. SHAZAM ….all of a sudden we understand something that we have been working on mentally for some time, maybe even years. As I grow older I find that this happens much more often than in years gone by. How does that happen? I can tell you that age makes up a part of it, because clearly the brain’s abilities change as we grow older. I read James A. Michener’s book “The Source” when I was 19 and enjoyed it. I read it again when I was 30 and understood it.
The ability to draw correct conclusions from incomplete data is a work of the brain that is a very necessary gift, but there still has to be a reason for it. Everyone has this ability in varying degrees, but are we capable of training our minds to do it better? I believe so! I believe that this is done by absorbing a great deal of information and thinking a great deal about a great many small things. All of this is being filed and correlated by the brain without any conscious effort on our part. Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. A bit here, a bit there and all of a sudden..SHAZAM... you have the whole story with the informational gaps filled in automatically. How large those gaps are depends on the individual. That at least was my analysis of what was happening.
Scientists have always been interested in what they call Eureka moments. I recently read an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 19th entitled “A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight -Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain’s Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming”.
The article outlined some examples such as Archimedes discovering how to calculate density and volume while taking a bath. Sir Isaac Newton allegedly discovered the law of universal gravity by being hit on the head by an apple, Descartes developed what is now known as coordinate geometry by watching flies, Einstein was thinking about trains and lightening when the idea of special relativity flashed into his head and Tesla was walking with a cane when he first thought of alternating current.
They report that there is a difference between analytical thinking and insightful thinking and “daydreaming” is the key. “Kalina Christoff of the University of British Columbia on Vancouver makes the point that the “mind wandering is a much more active state that we ever imagined, much more active than during reasoning with a complex problem.” She suspects that the flypaper of an unfocused mind may trap new ideas unexpected and associations more effectively than methodical reasoning. That may create the mental framework for new ideas. You can see regions of these networks becoming active just prior to people arriving at an insight.”
No one really knows what triggers SHAZAM moments, but reflection, meditation, daydreaming, or whatever you may wish to call it, allows the mind to work unhindered by structure. The brain can’t work on anything if there isn’t anything there to work on though. Reading may cause eye trouble, but the lack of reading definitely causes ignorance.
Another article that caught my eye in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Thursday, June 25th was another example of why it is impossible to deal with or please the greenies.
It appears there’s a 58 foot high dam on the Cuyahoga River near Akron, Ohio called the Gorge Metro Dam. A company wants to turn this small dam into a small hydroelectric power plant that will serve about 2,000 homes. Green...right? The dam is already there...right? All that is required is to alter it a bit by putting the plant there and create access roads to it...right...how green can you be? Well…that is the rub.
The project is being stopped by the Ohio EPA and the Summit County Metro Parks and about 20 other groups who claim the dam serves no useful purpose, impairs water quality and prevents fish from moving upstream, so therefore the dam should be torn down. Furthermore, the project would require clearing four acres of part for a new road and the plant itself and that would ”potentially endanger plant species”.
I thought that was really interesting because when they stocked Lake Erie with Coho salmon and they went upriver they died…on someone else's property, and really made a huge stink. Without creating next year’s brood because the water quality is natually unsuitable for reproduction. What about other fish. Who cares? They aren’t salmon and will adapt.
It gets better. Remember this is a “renewable” energy source to 2,000 homes. That also is the rub because it is “only” 2,000 homes. What if it was for 200,000 homes? They would then say that the project was entirely too big versus entirely too small. It gets better. They refuse to even allow them to conduct an environmental impact study to “demonstrate the benign nature of the project”.
There is no green that is green enough to satisfy those who are “green”.I wonder if there is anything green enough to satisfy those who are insane. Oh wait...SHAZAM...They are green!
Friday, July 3, 2009
Compiled by Rich Kozlovich
This week there has been so much information that I couldn’t even begin to put it all in here. As I organized this week’s information I ended up with about 7 pages of stuff. It was just too much to put in this article, so I deleted a great deal of wonderful information, which is typical.
Here are ACSH’s latest views on the Swine Flu “crisis”.
There is so much going around about the latest flu “crisis” and so much is somewhat irrational. The media is clearly responsible for most if it. Apparently the WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, indicates that the swine flu virus mixing with other strains such as avian flu,responded,“The virus is still very stable...But as we all know, the influenza virus is highly unpredictable and has great potential for mutation.” There are a number of points that should be discussed as a result. Avian flu is “highly pathogenic”according to Dr. Ross and “In combination with swine flu, that would indeed be a devastating virus, but they’re being alarmist again. They simply have to monitor the virus to see if there’s any change in genotype or virulence.” The CDC claims that their mathematical modeling shows that over one million Americans have now been infected with the swine flu virus.
So far there have only been 127 deaths in the U.S., “a relatively low number but disturbing in its uncharacteristic concentration in younger patients.”An article published on Friday from Associated Press medical writer Mark Stobbe reports that 600million swine flu vaccinations may be distributed for the upcoming flu season
All of this “crisis” thinking is causing “crisis” decisions that are unfounded regarding flu vaccinations. The country has three hundred million people and six hundred vaccinations are going to be available. Is everyone going to have two vaccinations this year? Irrational! Dr. Ross Gilbert points out “For now, people are running around in a panic, wearing masks and not going to school. They lack the perspective to see that the seasonal flu is more dangerous than this. [The usual seasonsal flu] is a pandemic by any standard, and thus far, apparently much more dangerous than swine flu.”
Because of the implementation of this and regular flu season shots ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan says “I can’t imagine the logistics of that. There’s going to be a huge overlap between the two vaccination schedules. I could easily imagine tens of millions of doses of this stuff not being used because people don’t want it or there’s just no way to get it distributed. In fact, millions of doses of annual, seasonal flu vaccine are discarded every year.”
The article also mentions the 1976 vaccination of 40 million Americans in anticipation of a new strain of swine flu: In 1976 America was in an anticipation of a swine flu “crisis” which never materialized. Forty million got shots and five hundred developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, but this is a bit of data dredging because no one knows what really causes it.
Dr. Ross notes that “The flu vaccine is practically as safe as rainwater unless you’re allergic to eggs, since it’s developed in eggs. The fact that in 1976 there were 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome from 40 million doses swine flu is of minimal concern. That risk is about one in 100,000, and in most cases the symptoms were mild and reversible. These vaccines will hopefully even be less toxic.”
Get the Lead out….Another environmental scare?
Without scares could these activist organizations exist? If they didn’t exist would they have to go out and get real jobs? Perhaps that what they are really afraid of?
The Center for Environmental Health claim to have “found yet another unnecessary lead risk: high levels of lead in name-brand handbags and wallets purchased from Target, Macy’s, Wal-Mart, and many other retailers,” and they recommend that we “TELL THESE STORES TO GET THE LEAD OUT OF PURSES!” They go on to make a demonstrably false claim: “Scientists are increasingly convinced that there is no safe level of lead exposure.”
Once again we find “scientists”, the so-called experts who we are all supposed to bend before and obey, are changing the rules to make their views the “new science”. “This is a new wave of people who are arguing against the classical toxicological principle that dosages are significant,” says Dr. Whelan.
Dr. Ross adds: “We strongly disagree with that thesis on the grounds that it is unscientific and is basically analogous to a revocation of the laws of thermodynamics -- by which I mean they can’t just get away with saying that a tiny exposure is worse than a large one -- it’s nonsense. There is no evidence to support it.”
Bisphenol-A (BPA)
I recently had a conversation with a good friend who has been involved in all the legislative issues that have faced our industry for many years. Recently there was a discussion about the need to return pesticides that have been forced off the market (banned is the commonly used term, but the only pesticide used in structural pest control that was ever banned was DDT and that was based on junk science) by EPA and their tactic of changing the rules in order to make it too expensive to maintain a pesticide registration.
Dursban came into the conversation and the claims by activists that it caused autism. One of the scientists commented that Dursban has been off the market for ten years and if it really did cause autism then you should have seen a drop in autism cases and we haven’t. It must then be concluded that Dursban didn’t cause autism. I was really impressed; at least until he then said that he has decided that plastic bottles were what was causing autism. And he meant it. Of course it could be worse….here is someone who believes that these chemicals cause obesity.
Former environmental consultant Janelle Sorensen has a hunch that our children are getting fatter because of chemicals in plastics, and she convinced Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, to agree with her. Well, sort of. “Right now it’s a correlation; we don’t know if it’s cause and effect or an accidental finding,” Dr. Landrigan said. “The $64,000 question is, what is the causal pathway? Does it go through the thyroid gland? Does it change fat metabolism?”
Except for a very few people, I will tell you what changes metabolism. Exercise! It is all about calories in and calories out.
In a blog entry published on Friday, Andrew Van Dam with the Association of Health Care Journalists finally noticed the media bias against bisphenol-A (BPA)that ACSH staffers -- almost alone against the crowd -- have been condemning for some time. “In a review of American media coverage of the controversy of bisphenol-A, researchers at STATS (a nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service affiliated with George Mason University), say the media failed to properly weight different studies based on their size and research methodology.”
Dr. Whelan has noticed the trend: “If you looked at media coverage of BPA for the last six months, you’d find that a vast majority of the reports were biased in favor of anti-chemical scares. There were very few scientists who were willing to defend BPA despite all the evidence that proves it’s not dangerous. The FDA has already ruled time and time again that BPA is safe as used. How could they come out with any other assessment, unless a new administration can overturn scientific evidence?”
“This needs to be brought to light,” says Dr. Ross. “All of this hype comes from two or three junk science groups like the one under Frederick vom Saal that has been trying to scare people about BPA for over ten years. They automatically doubt any corporate-funded study -- including any researcher who ever received industry support -- for absolutely no reason other than the fact that they want to be praised as heroes.”
“Well, I don’t know their motivation, if it’s publicity-seeking or what,” says Dr. Whelan, “but I know that they aren’t advancing the cause of public health. Any reassessment study would take so long that BPA would probably be banned everywhere already by the time that they prove it is safe again.”
New York Times health and science columnist Gina Kolata, wrote a guest contribution to John Tierney’s New York Times science blog highlighting the recent STATS report that revealed a lack of objectivity in media coverage of the bisphenol-A debate.
“The fact that Ms. Kolata is raising questions about media bias is important since she’s a mainstream reporter, and the mainstream media doesn’t like to criticize itself,” says ACSH’s Jeff Stier. “People aren’t interested in a critical look at the negative news they’ve been putting out, but she’s showing them anyway. Thanks are due as well to John Tierney for highlighting this story initially.”
Acetaminophen: Use As Directed
FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory committee is meeting to discuss “how to address the public health problem of liver injury related to the use of acetaminophen in both over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription (RX) products,”noting that they are not seeking to remove it from the market, as it is safe when used as directed…..People just need to be careful about mixing medications that have acetaminophen in them.” For more information, see ACSH’s publication on OTC pain relievers.
FDA advisory panelists voted yesterday to ban Percocet and Vicodin, two popular painkillers that contain acetaminophen, because of their potential to cause liver damage. I think this is an important point.
This week there has been so much information that I couldn’t even begin to put it all in here. As I organized this week’s information I ended up with about 7 pages of stuff. It was just too much to put in this article, so I deleted a great deal of wonderful information, which is typical.
Here are ACSH’s latest views on the Swine Flu “crisis”.
There is so much going around about the latest flu “crisis” and so much is somewhat irrational. The media is clearly responsible for most if it. Apparently the WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, indicates that the swine flu virus mixing with other strains such as avian flu,responded,“The virus is still very stable...But as we all know, the influenza virus is highly unpredictable and has great potential for mutation.” There are a number of points that should be discussed as a result. Avian flu is “highly pathogenic”according to Dr. Ross and “In combination with swine flu, that would indeed be a devastating virus, but they’re being alarmist again. They simply have to monitor the virus to see if there’s any change in genotype or virulence.” The CDC claims that their mathematical modeling shows that over one million Americans have now been infected with the swine flu virus.
So far there have only been 127 deaths in the U.S., “a relatively low number but disturbing in its uncharacteristic concentration in younger patients.”An article published on Friday from Associated Press medical writer Mark Stobbe reports that 600million swine flu vaccinations may be distributed for the upcoming flu season
All of this “crisis” thinking is causing “crisis” decisions that are unfounded regarding flu vaccinations. The country has three hundred million people and six hundred vaccinations are going to be available. Is everyone going to have two vaccinations this year? Irrational! Dr. Ross Gilbert points out “For now, people are running around in a panic, wearing masks and not going to school. They lack the perspective to see that the seasonal flu is more dangerous than this. [The usual seasonsal flu] is a pandemic by any standard, and thus far, apparently much more dangerous than swine flu.”
Because of the implementation of this and regular flu season shots ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan says “I can’t imagine the logistics of that. There’s going to be a huge overlap between the two vaccination schedules. I could easily imagine tens of millions of doses of this stuff not being used because people don’t want it or there’s just no way to get it distributed. In fact, millions of doses of annual, seasonal flu vaccine are discarded every year.”
The article also mentions the 1976 vaccination of 40 million Americans in anticipation of a new strain of swine flu: In 1976 America was in an anticipation of a swine flu “crisis” which never materialized. Forty million got shots and five hundred developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, but this is a bit of data dredging because no one knows what really causes it.
Dr. Ross notes that “The flu vaccine is practically as safe as rainwater unless you’re allergic to eggs, since it’s developed in eggs. The fact that in 1976 there were 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome from 40 million doses swine flu is of minimal concern. That risk is about one in 100,000, and in most cases the symptoms were mild and reversible. These vaccines will hopefully even be less toxic.”
Get the Lead out….Another environmental scare?
Without scares could these activist organizations exist? If they didn’t exist would they have to go out and get real jobs? Perhaps that what they are really afraid of?
The Center for Environmental Health claim to have “found yet another unnecessary lead risk: high levels of lead in name-brand handbags and wallets purchased from Target, Macy’s, Wal-Mart, and many other retailers,” and they recommend that we “TELL THESE STORES TO GET THE LEAD OUT OF PURSES!” They go on to make a demonstrably false claim: “Scientists are increasingly convinced that there is no safe level of lead exposure.”
Once again we find “scientists”, the so-called experts who we are all supposed to bend before and obey, are changing the rules to make their views the “new science”. “This is a new wave of people who are arguing against the classical toxicological principle that dosages are significant,” says Dr. Whelan.
Dr. Ross adds: “We strongly disagree with that thesis on the grounds that it is unscientific and is basically analogous to a revocation of the laws of thermodynamics -- by which I mean they can’t just get away with saying that a tiny exposure is worse than a large one -- it’s nonsense. There is no evidence to support it.”
Bisphenol-A (BPA)
I recently had a conversation with a good friend who has been involved in all the legislative issues that have faced our industry for many years. Recently there was a discussion about the need to return pesticides that have been forced off the market (banned is the commonly used term, but the only pesticide used in structural pest control that was ever banned was DDT and that was based on junk science) by EPA and their tactic of changing the rules in order to make it too expensive to maintain a pesticide registration.
Dursban came into the conversation and the claims by activists that it caused autism. One of the scientists commented that Dursban has been off the market for ten years and if it really did cause autism then you should have seen a drop in autism cases and we haven’t. It must then be concluded that Dursban didn’t cause autism. I was really impressed; at least until he then said that he has decided that plastic bottles were what was causing autism. And he meant it. Of course it could be worse….here is someone who believes that these chemicals cause obesity.
Former environmental consultant Janelle Sorensen has a hunch that our children are getting fatter because of chemicals in plastics, and she convinced Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, to agree with her. Well, sort of. “Right now it’s a correlation; we don’t know if it’s cause and effect or an accidental finding,” Dr. Landrigan said. “The $64,000 question is, what is the causal pathway? Does it go through the thyroid gland? Does it change fat metabolism?”
Except for a very few people, I will tell you what changes metabolism. Exercise! It is all about calories in and calories out.
In a blog entry published on Friday, Andrew Van Dam with the Association of Health Care Journalists finally noticed the media bias against bisphenol-A (BPA)that ACSH staffers -- almost alone against the crowd -- have been condemning for some time. “In a review of American media coverage of the controversy of bisphenol-A, researchers at STATS (a nonprofit, nonpartisan Statistical Assessment Service affiliated with George Mason University), say the media failed to properly weight different studies based on their size and research methodology.”
Dr. Whelan has noticed the trend: “If you looked at media coverage of BPA for the last six months, you’d find that a vast majority of the reports were biased in favor of anti-chemical scares. There were very few scientists who were willing to defend BPA despite all the evidence that proves it’s not dangerous. The FDA has already ruled time and time again that BPA is safe as used. How could they come out with any other assessment, unless a new administration can overturn scientific evidence?”
“This needs to be brought to light,” says Dr. Ross. “All of this hype comes from two or three junk science groups like the one under Frederick vom Saal that has been trying to scare people about BPA for over ten years. They automatically doubt any corporate-funded study -- including any researcher who ever received industry support -- for absolutely no reason other than the fact that they want to be praised as heroes.”
“Well, I don’t know their motivation, if it’s publicity-seeking or what,” says Dr. Whelan, “but I know that they aren’t advancing the cause of public health. Any reassessment study would take so long that BPA would probably be banned everywhere already by the time that they prove it is safe again.”
New York Times health and science columnist Gina Kolata, wrote a guest contribution to John Tierney’s New York Times science blog highlighting the recent STATS report that revealed a lack of objectivity in media coverage of the bisphenol-A debate.
“The fact that Ms. Kolata is raising questions about media bias is important since she’s a mainstream reporter, and the mainstream media doesn’t like to criticize itself,” says ACSH’s Jeff Stier. “People aren’t interested in a critical look at the negative news they’ve been putting out, but she’s showing them anyway. Thanks are due as well to John Tierney for highlighting this story initially.”
Acetaminophen: Use As Directed
FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory committee is meeting to discuss “how to address the public health problem of liver injury related to the use of acetaminophen in both over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription (RX) products,”noting that they are not seeking to remove it from the market, as it is safe when used as directed…..People just need to be careful about mixing medications that have acetaminophen in them.” For more information, see ACSH’s publication on OTC pain relievers.
FDA advisory panelists voted yesterday to ban Percocet and Vicodin, two popular painkillers that contain acetaminophen, because of their potential to cause liver damage. I think this is an important point.
“Consumer representatives on the panel included Sidney Wolfe, an
outspoken opponent of pharmaceutical companies and drugs in general. “The fact
that Sidney Wolfe is a ‘consumer representative’ on a supposedly objective
panel is very disturbing,” says ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross. “He is taking up a
position that should be going to an actual consumer representative and not an
activist from the country’s most strident anti-pharmaceutical watchdog group.”
Very often these panels of government “experts” are nothing more
than activists who have been given the opportunity to expound their latest
philosophical flavor of the day without any real opposition. These various
panels are often rigged in order to come out with predetermined results. It was
the same with DDT and the pattern has continued down to today.
As I said before, I had to eliminate a host of information, including information about activists attempting to eliminate fluoride from the drinking water in New Jersey, and medicines that can be developed from genetically modified foods, although I did link those two pieces of information in my weekly newsletter. For those who would like to receive ASCH’s Morning Dispatch:
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online at https://www.acsh.org/support/step1.asp, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225 or e-mail morning[at]acsh.org.
As I said before, I had to eliminate a host of information, including information about activists attempting to eliminate fluoride from the drinking water in New Jersey, and medicines that can be developed from genetically modified foods, although I did link those two pieces of information in my weekly newsletter. For those who would like to receive ASCH’s Morning Dispatch:
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online at https://www.acsh.org/support/step1.asp, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225 or e-mail morning[at]acsh.org.
Saturday, June 20, 200
By Rich Kozlovich
Who to believe? We absolutely KNOW that PhD’s cannot be trusted. Grant money and the desire for prestige has contaminated their ranks to the point that everything they say must be questioned. De omnibus dubitandum, (doubt everything) is supposed to be the basis for all that a true scientist does. It has become my personal motto and should be adopted by everyone else because entirely too many “scientists” doubt only those things that will stop the flow of grant money.
Those true scientists who stood against the “science” regarding anthropogenic global warming were virtually ostracized by their peers. Many lost positions and had their grants revoked, very often those two situations go hand in hand….no grant money….no job! As the years go by the grant money flowed faster and faster to promote all things green. Unfortunately they didn’t necessarily promote all things scientific. Because of the internet we see can now clearly see just how untrustworthy “scientists” can be and who the untrustworthy ones are. We can also see who can be trusted.
We now have access to all the arguments, both pro and con, on any given subject. Unfortunately many of the scares really are nothing more that con jobs that help make sure that the grant money keeps right on flowing into their corrupt hands, and that has consequences.
Once someone has made their mind up to really research information they find themselves in a quandary, where do I go to read the truth. It is difficult to know right away who to read and who to trust. It took me some time and a great deal or reading to find those worth reading. I now know who to go to in order to find out the truth on any matter in which I am interested, and that list grows every year.
I have been re-reading Steve Milloy’s book, Junk Science Judo. Milloy discusses statistics and epidemiological studies extensively in this book and how this information is manipulated and misrepresented. Really boring and complicated stuff, but in order to know what everyone is talking about you must understand how statistics, which has been described as an arcane art of the occult, actually works and how that data are molded.
Having said that I will come to the point! The last chapter of his book is entitled, “Know Your Friends” and one of them that he lists is the American Council on Science and Health, headed up by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. They don’t always agree with one another, and for that matter I don’t always agree with them, but both recognize the intrinsic integrity in each other’s work, and so do I. They’re only concerned with the facts and each is prepared to follow the facts no matter where they lead.
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health I get an update called the “Morning Dispatch” which outlines the latest news scare or latest junkscience being presented to the public through a corrupt and lazy media, and they may even agree with the latest media blitz.
I have decided to write a weekly outline on stories that interest me that ACSH sends to its members. I will share their views, with my take on it on a weekly basis because I believe that much of what they have to say isn’t being seen by enough people. Many times the story will extend over a week or a month, so I will try to condense the story each week into a few paragraphs.
Swine Flu
Each week since the swine flu made its appearance on the world scene the ACSH has been a steady voice of moderation. When it appeared that the media had the world in the grip of a disastrous worldwide plague, the ACSH outlined just how many cases there were and how many deaths actually occurred. It turned out their view that this was more hype that disaster was correct. “Dr. Henry Miller of ACSH’s Board of Trustees and Stanford University's Hoover Institution is a molecular biologist and former flu researcher who argues in the Washington Times that the swine flu pandemic was labeled as such too readily.” Part of the problem is the WHO doesn’t follow its own rules for these kinds of determination.
The latest scare is that “Brazilian scientists reported on Tuesday that they have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus”. Dr. Gill Ross states that “Influenza viruses are notoriously plastic. They change quite readily,” explains Dr. Ross. “If you analyze the genome of the currently circulating flu virus you’re going to find variability. So if the swine flu virus does mutate to become more virulent, it will most likely still contain many of the same antigens. The vaccine being developed and produced for this new H1N1 variant should still provide substantial protection, and it should still prevent a lot of cases.”
Dr. Ross likes that idea that that CDC under Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has decided to offer vaccinations against this virus right in the schools next year. Noting that “It’s a convenient location, and giving an intramuscular flu shot is a straightforward procedure. School nurses are more than qualified to do it.” Also, theFDA has been targeting websites that peddle fraudulent swine flu prevention and treatment products.
Many of you may too young to remember polio because Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine to prevent it in the 1950’s. However, he created his vaccine from dead cells, which the epidemiological world hated because he violated their first law….all vaccines had to be created from live cells. Later the Sabin vaccine was developed (from live cells) and was introduced to the general population…for free as I recall….in sugar cubes at schools. I remember the long lines and I also remember that these efforts eradicated polio…except for those few who contracted it from the live cells vaccine. There never was a case from the Salk vaccine, which I took early on. I found them to be three very painful shots, which made the Sabin vaccine much more popular….but no cases of polio from it.
Zicam
Homeopathic treatments apparently don’t need FDA approval and therefore they don’t go through the testing as would be expected of pharmaceuticals. Matrixx Initiatives, the manufacturer of Zicam has been ordered to stop selling intranasal cold remedies after more than 130 reports of people who lost their sense of smell after using the zinc-based, homeopathic products. “A public health advisory posted on the FDA website said the products “have all been associated with long-lasting or permanent loss of smell” and “have not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the duration and severity of cold symptoms.”
Stier says that “This is a problem because homeopathic supplements are like other diet supplements under the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 in that they don’t need to be proven effective or even safe. This law’s deferential treatment of dietary supplements is based on the unscientific notion that ‘natural’ cures are somehow safer.” ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross would like to know just how dangerous is this product? If this was a pharmaceutical the activists would be screaming to the heavens….but not a peep when it is “all natural”. And you wonder who can be trusted.
ADHD
Here is an area in which I have some personal concerns. ACSH agrees with this judgment. Regulators have advised parents to continue medicating their children for ADHD despite the risk of sudden death suggested by a study that used questionable methods. I have some personal experience with this issue of children being drugged for “acting” up. I have heard accounts of these drugs working wonders on children, and I believe these accounts. I have heard the opposite, and I believe those also. I also question the way it is determined whether treatment really is necessary. Maybe that is the real issue. Those who really need treatment versus those who are just difficult! I also have misgivings as to what these drugs do to them as they hit their teen years. I hate saying this, but If children are being prescribed drugs when they don’t really need them (which I believe is an ongoing problem with this issue) what are the long term effects.
Fortified Foods
The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday examining the latest trend of fortifying foods with extra nutrients. ACSH’s Dr. Ruth Kava adds: “There are no daily requirements established for many of these added compounds, so there’s no way for a consumer to know if the amount in a particular food will be too little, just right, or excessive.”
For more information, see ACSH’s publication on functional foods.
Anti-Aging Hormones
Recently I linked an article in Green Notes that highlighted the Oprah Winfrey show and her “expert” guests (who she apparently agrees with) promoting all sorts of unscientific horsepucky. Their only real qualification is that they are celebrities who are paid huge sums of money to mouth other people’s words while pretending to be someone else. When are people going to stop listening to this woman?
“At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, the American Medical Association echoed ACSH staffers’ assessment that there's no scientific evidence to justify the claims of anti-aging hormones,including the so-called “bio-identicals” touted by celebrity non-expert Suzanne Sommers. These hormones are not just ineffective for their touted purpose, they can also be dangerous when used without medical direction.” says Dr. Ruth Kava.
Integrity Exemplified
This story is rich in irony. The Center for Science in the Public Interest accused the American Council on Science and Health of being a shill for those who support and donate to them. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan told them that if they really think that donating money to ACSH will change their views, then they should sponsor them and see what happens. They never did send a check and here we have the ultimate irony. CSPI is threatening to sue “Bayer Healthcare if it continues to claim its One-A-Day vitamins for men reduce the risk of prostate cancer” and ACSH says that they will “join CSPI in criticizing Bayer “ in spite of CSPI’s claims of bias…which is really the pot calling the kettle black. And just think……CSPI never sent a check! Of course when all you are concerned about is the facts the decision is an easy one.
Ejeta Wins World Food Prize
Ethiopian geneticist Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University was honored with the 2009 World Food Prize for developing strains of sorghum that are resistant to drought and the parasitic weed Striga. “This is something that people across the spectrum from the left to the right should be celebrating,” says Stier. Even so, ACSH staffers doubt that we'll hear any endorsements of this lifesaving research from the anti-chemical activists at Greenpeace and similar groups.”Let’s face it….they are not about saving lives…that is the shtick they use to convince everyone to adopt practices and policies that will actually cause disease, squalor, misery, suffering and death.
Dangerous Side Effects, Dangerous Labels
If you really read the potential side effects of everything that goes into your mouth you wouldn’t eat. The same can be true of drugs. According to an Associated Press article on Friday,“After fifteen months of investigation, the Food and Drug Administration said Merck & Co. Inc., AstraZeneca, and Cornerstone Therapeutics will have to raise label warnings about psychiatric problems reported by a handful of patients taking their [asthma] drugs.” Potential problems include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and insomnia.
“Hopefully, this won’t follow the trend of counterproductive and unanticipated effects of excessive black-box warnings from the FDA,” says Dr. Ross. “Some people correctly read them as alerts that there can be these effects, but some doctors and parents of sick children will be so fearful that they won’t give kids the medication they require.” “The most effective solution to a problem like this is for parents and doctors to pay attention to possible effects that a medication might be having on their child,” says Dr. Kava, “but of course, that’s true for any medicine.”
For more information, including asthma treatment options, see ACSH’s publication on asthma.
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online HERE, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225
Who to believe? We absolutely KNOW that PhD’s cannot be trusted. Grant money and the desire for prestige has contaminated their ranks to the point that everything they say must be questioned. De omnibus dubitandum, (doubt everything) is supposed to be the basis for all that a true scientist does. It has become my personal motto and should be adopted by everyone else because entirely too many “scientists” doubt only those things that will stop the flow of grant money.
Those true scientists who stood against the “science” regarding anthropogenic global warming were virtually ostracized by their peers. Many lost positions and had their grants revoked, very often those two situations go hand in hand….no grant money….no job! As the years go by the grant money flowed faster and faster to promote all things green. Unfortunately they didn’t necessarily promote all things scientific. Because of the internet we see can now clearly see just how untrustworthy “scientists” can be and who the untrustworthy ones are. We can also see who can be trusted.
We now have access to all the arguments, both pro and con, on any given subject. Unfortunately many of the scares really are nothing more that con jobs that help make sure that the grant money keeps right on flowing into their corrupt hands, and that has consequences.
Once someone has made their mind up to really research information they find themselves in a quandary, where do I go to read the truth. It is difficult to know right away who to read and who to trust. It took me some time and a great deal or reading to find those worth reading. I now know who to go to in order to find out the truth on any matter in which I am interested, and that list grows every year.
I have been re-reading Steve Milloy’s book, Junk Science Judo. Milloy discusses statistics and epidemiological studies extensively in this book and how this information is manipulated and misrepresented. Really boring and complicated stuff, but in order to know what everyone is talking about you must understand how statistics, which has been described as an arcane art of the occult, actually works and how that data are molded.
Having said that I will come to the point! The last chapter of his book is entitled, “Know Your Friends” and one of them that he lists is the American Council on Science and Health, headed up by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. They don’t always agree with one another, and for that matter I don’t always agree with them, but both recognize the intrinsic integrity in each other’s work, and so do I. They’re only concerned with the facts and each is prepared to follow the facts no matter where they lead.
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health I get an update called the “Morning Dispatch” which outlines the latest news scare or latest junkscience being presented to the public through a corrupt and lazy media, and they may even agree with the latest media blitz.
I have decided to write a weekly outline on stories that interest me that ACSH sends to its members. I will share their views, with my take on it on a weekly basis because I believe that much of what they have to say isn’t being seen by enough people. Many times the story will extend over a week or a month, so I will try to condense the story each week into a few paragraphs.
Swine Flu
Each week since the swine flu made its appearance on the world scene the ACSH has been a steady voice of moderation. When it appeared that the media had the world in the grip of a disastrous worldwide plague, the ACSH outlined just how many cases there were and how many deaths actually occurred. It turned out their view that this was more hype that disaster was correct. “Dr. Henry Miller of ACSH’s Board of Trustees and Stanford University's Hoover Institution is a molecular biologist and former flu researcher who argues in the Washington Times that the swine flu pandemic was labeled as such too readily.” Part of the problem is the WHO doesn’t follow its own rules for these kinds of determination.
The latest scare is that “Brazilian scientists reported on Tuesday that they have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus”. Dr. Gill Ross states that “Influenza viruses are notoriously plastic. They change quite readily,” explains Dr. Ross. “If you analyze the genome of the currently circulating flu virus you’re going to find variability. So if the swine flu virus does mutate to become more virulent, it will most likely still contain many of the same antigens. The vaccine being developed and produced for this new H1N1 variant should still provide substantial protection, and it should still prevent a lot of cases.”
Dr. Ross likes that idea that that CDC under Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has decided to offer vaccinations against this virus right in the schools next year. Noting that “It’s a convenient location, and giving an intramuscular flu shot is a straightforward procedure. School nurses are more than qualified to do it.” Also, theFDA has been targeting websites that peddle fraudulent swine flu prevention and treatment products.
Many of you may too young to remember polio because Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine to prevent it in the 1950’s. However, he created his vaccine from dead cells, which the epidemiological world hated because he violated their first law….all vaccines had to be created from live cells. Later the Sabin vaccine was developed (from live cells) and was introduced to the general population…for free as I recall….in sugar cubes at schools. I remember the long lines and I also remember that these efforts eradicated polio…except for those few who contracted it from the live cells vaccine. There never was a case from the Salk vaccine, which I took early on. I found them to be three very painful shots, which made the Sabin vaccine much more popular….but no cases of polio from it.
Zicam
Homeopathic treatments apparently don’t need FDA approval and therefore they don’t go through the testing as would be expected of pharmaceuticals. Matrixx Initiatives, the manufacturer of Zicam has been ordered to stop selling intranasal cold remedies after more than 130 reports of people who lost their sense of smell after using the zinc-based, homeopathic products. “A public health advisory posted on the FDA website said the products “have all been associated with long-lasting or permanent loss of smell” and “have not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the duration and severity of cold symptoms.”
Stier says that “This is a problem because homeopathic supplements are like other diet supplements under the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 in that they don’t need to be proven effective or even safe. This law’s deferential treatment of dietary supplements is based on the unscientific notion that ‘natural’ cures are somehow safer.” ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross would like to know just how dangerous is this product? If this was a pharmaceutical the activists would be screaming to the heavens….but not a peep when it is “all natural”. And you wonder who can be trusted.
ADHD
Here is an area in which I have some personal concerns. ACSH agrees with this judgment. Regulators have advised parents to continue medicating their children for ADHD despite the risk of sudden death suggested by a study that used questionable methods. I have some personal experience with this issue of children being drugged for “acting” up. I have heard accounts of these drugs working wonders on children, and I believe these accounts. I have heard the opposite, and I believe those also. I also question the way it is determined whether treatment really is necessary. Maybe that is the real issue. Those who really need treatment versus those who are just difficult! I also have misgivings as to what these drugs do to them as they hit their teen years. I hate saying this, but If children are being prescribed drugs when they don’t really need them (which I believe is an ongoing problem with this issue) what are the long term effects.
Fortified Foods
The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday examining the latest trend of fortifying foods with extra nutrients. ACSH’s Dr. Ruth Kava adds: “There are no daily requirements established for many of these added compounds, so there’s no way for a consumer to know if the amount in a particular food will be too little, just right, or excessive.”
For more information, see ACSH’s publication on functional foods.
Anti-Aging Hormones
Recently I linked an article in Green Notes that highlighted the Oprah Winfrey show and her “expert” guests (who she apparently agrees with) promoting all sorts of unscientific horsepucky. Their only real qualification is that they are celebrities who are paid huge sums of money to mouth other people’s words while pretending to be someone else. When are people going to stop listening to this woman?
“At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, the American Medical Association echoed ACSH staffers’ assessment that there's no scientific evidence to justify the claims of anti-aging hormones,including the so-called “bio-identicals” touted by celebrity non-expert Suzanne Sommers. These hormones are not just ineffective for their touted purpose, they can also be dangerous when used without medical direction.” says Dr. Ruth Kava.
Integrity Exemplified
This story is rich in irony. The Center for Science in the Public Interest accused the American Council on Science and Health of being a shill for those who support and donate to them. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan told them that if they really think that donating money to ACSH will change their views, then they should sponsor them and see what happens. They never did send a check and here we have the ultimate irony. CSPI is threatening to sue “Bayer Healthcare if it continues to claim its One-A-Day vitamins for men reduce the risk of prostate cancer” and ACSH says that they will “join CSPI in criticizing Bayer “ in spite of CSPI’s claims of bias…which is really the pot calling the kettle black. And just think……CSPI never sent a check! Of course when all you are concerned about is the facts the decision is an easy one.
Ejeta Wins World Food Prize
Ethiopian geneticist Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University was honored with the 2009 World Food Prize for developing strains of sorghum that are resistant to drought and the parasitic weed Striga. “This is something that people across the spectrum from the left to the right should be celebrating,” says Stier. Even so, ACSH staffers doubt that we'll hear any endorsements of this lifesaving research from the anti-chemical activists at Greenpeace and similar groups.”Let’s face it….they are not about saving lives…that is the shtick they use to convince everyone to adopt practices and policies that will actually cause disease, squalor, misery, suffering and death.
Dangerous Side Effects, Dangerous Labels
If you really read the potential side effects of everything that goes into your mouth you wouldn’t eat. The same can be true of drugs. According to an Associated Press article on Friday,“After fifteen months of investigation, the Food and Drug Administration said Merck & Co. Inc., AstraZeneca, and Cornerstone Therapeutics will have to raise label warnings about psychiatric problems reported by a handful of patients taking their [asthma] drugs.” Potential problems include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and insomnia.
“Hopefully, this won’t follow the trend of counterproductive and unanticipated effects of excessive black-box warnings from the FDA,” says Dr. Ross. “Some people correctly read them as alerts that there can be these effects, but some doctors and parents of sick children will be so fearful that they won’t give kids the medication they require.” “The most effective solution to a problem like this is for parents and doctors to pay attention to possible effects that a medication might be having on their child,” says Dr. Kava, “but of course, that’s true for any medicine.”
For more information, including asthma treatment options, see ACSH’s publication on asthma.
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online HERE, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225
Friday, May 29, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
Thomas Sowell is one of the finest thinkers and writers in the nation today. He has the unique ability to make very complex problems understandable. That… is no small skill. On a regular basis he writes a column called Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. I love reading his insights and his basic common sense, thought provoking and sometimes humorous approach about the real world. This has inspired me to publish my own “Random Thoughts”. Probably just this once….because much to my surprise…..it isn’t as easy as it seems.
I have noticed over the years that the trade journals that support our industry are filled with advertising. Many of the advertisers are pesticide manufacturers and distributors. It amazes me that the industry’s trade journals work so hard promoting “green” pest control and IPM, which is promoting the elimination of pesticides. If that happens; who will advertise in the trade journals? It kind of reminds me of those churches and ministers that went around saying that God was dead, and the Bible is a myth, and then expected the churches to be full.
It seems to me that “green” pest control and IPM are largely indefinable and must be taken as an article of faith. Should the EPA be promoting this “faith based intuitive”?
Our state and national trade associations are also working hard to promote“green” pest control and IPM. If we give in to the green activists and become“green”, will we need trade associations, or will the Sierra Club sufficiently fulfill that function?
Socialism has been an abject failure everywhere in the world where it has been tried; yet we hear socialist concepts being touted as the answer to our problems. Why? If it has failed everywhere else, why would we think it would prosper here?
When environmental policy has seriously influenced or been imposed by green activists and organizations on the third world, it consistently produced misery, squalor, disease, death and suffering. Yet we insist that these are the very same concepts and programs that we should adopt here. Why? If environmentalism promotes dystopia everywhere else in the world, why would we think that it will be different here?
If creating green jobs cost 2.2 jobs for every “green” job elsewhere in the world, why would we think it would be different here?
If green policies increase costs and reduce the quality of life everywhere else in the world; why would we think it would be different here.
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be fraudulent. James Hansen’s climate figures had easily discovered “mistakes” and the IPCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt. Why do those who promote anthropogenic climate change still cite them as sources?
When the leaders of the environmental movement make misanthropic comments about humanity and that the Earth is better off without mankind; why do we believe them when they say that we should adopt their policies, “because it is for the children”?
The greenies are against nuclear power. Then they are for it. Then they are against it again. They loved wind power. Then the hated it. They loved solar power. Then they hated it. Why is it that greenies are always hot for technology that doesn’t exist? Why is it that they hate that self same technology when it has the potential to become reality?
The green activist organizations have no command and control structure. That means they can be for and against something at the same time and still be right. Must be nice!
We have a real problem with words in this country. We love the words fair and sustainable. We just can’t define them; and yet we wish to make them the basis for programs that also can’t be defined and are therefore open ended. Much like green pest control and IPM!
We have had the “best” and “brightest” tell us that everything we have done for 60 years is all wrong. We also have had more people live longer, healthier, happier lives than ever in human history. Someone must have done something right!
No matter how much technology we develop to make life better; we keep hearing and believing that it is making us sick. Why then are we living longer?
I am convinced that the “best” and “brightest” amongst us believe that as long as they keep dumping more and more horsepucky on us that eventually we won’t notice the smell. Or worse yet; we will think that the smell is normal.
There really isn’t anything quite like a good epidemic to get things started.
If “green” is so much better, why did anyone abandon it in the first place? If“green” was so good, there wouldn’t have been pest problems…right? How then, did manufacturers convince anyone that they needed pesticides?
For years I have noticed that the activists in the green movements don’t seem to have jobs. If they never had a real job; how did they become so expert in everyone else’s business?
Thomas Sowell once commented that “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.” I was once told to not focus on the negative aspects of a program, but rather focus on the positive aspects. I said that I would if they would just explain to me what they were. I never got an answer.
Why do we keep trying to find a third way? Clearly, in order for there to be a third way, there had to already be two different ways. It seems likely that one way had to be right and one had to be wrong. Why can’t we just take the right way?
Why is it that someone who pays twenty thousand dollars in real estate taxes won’t pay the exterminator five hundred dollars for pest control services?
Thomas Sowell is one of the finest thinkers and writers in the nation today. He has the unique ability to make very complex problems understandable. That… is no small skill. On a regular basis he writes a column called Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. I love reading his insights and his basic common sense, thought provoking and sometimes humorous approach about the real world. This has inspired me to publish my own “Random Thoughts”. Probably just this once….because much to my surprise…..it isn’t as easy as it seems.
I have noticed over the years that the trade journals that support our industry are filled with advertising. Many of the advertisers are pesticide manufacturers and distributors. It amazes me that the industry’s trade journals work so hard promoting “green” pest control and IPM, which is promoting the elimination of pesticides. If that happens; who will advertise in the trade journals? It kind of reminds me of those churches and ministers that went around saying that God was dead, and the Bible is a myth, and then expected the churches to be full.
It seems to me that “green” pest control and IPM are largely indefinable and must be taken as an article of faith. Should the EPA be promoting this “faith based intuitive”?
Our state and national trade associations are also working hard to promote“green” pest control and IPM. If we give in to the green activists and become“green”, will we need trade associations, or will the Sierra Club sufficiently fulfill that function?
Socialism has been an abject failure everywhere in the world where it has been tried; yet we hear socialist concepts being touted as the answer to our problems. Why? If it has failed everywhere else, why would we think it would prosper here?
When environmental policy has seriously influenced or been imposed by green activists and organizations on the third world, it consistently produced misery, squalor, disease, death and suffering. Yet we insist that these are the very same concepts and programs that we should adopt here. Why? If environmentalism promotes dystopia everywhere else in the world, why would we think that it will be different here?
If creating green jobs cost 2.2 jobs for every “green” job elsewhere in the world, why would we think it would be different here?
If green policies increase costs and reduce the quality of life everywhere else in the world; why would we think it would be different here.
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be fraudulent. James Hansen’s climate figures had easily discovered “mistakes” and the IPCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt. Why do those who promote anthropogenic climate change still cite them as sources?
When the leaders of the environmental movement make misanthropic comments about humanity and that the Earth is better off without mankind; why do we believe them when they say that we should adopt their policies, “because it is for the children”?
The greenies are against nuclear power. Then they are for it. Then they are against it again. They loved wind power. Then the hated it. They loved solar power. Then they hated it. Why is it that greenies are always hot for technology that doesn’t exist? Why is it that they hate that self same technology when it has the potential to become reality?
The green activist organizations have no command and control structure. That means they can be for and against something at the same time and still be right. Must be nice!
We have a real problem with words in this country. We love the words fair and sustainable. We just can’t define them; and yet we wish to make them the basis for programs that also can’t be defined and are therefore open ended. Much like green pest control and IPM!
We have had the “best” and “brightest” tell us that everything we have done for 60 years is all wrong. We also have had more people live longer, healthier, happier lives than ever in human history. Someone must have done something right!
No matter how much technology we develop to make life better; we keep hearing and believing that it is making us sick. Why then are we living longer?
I am convinced that the “best” and “brightest” amongst us believe that as long as they keep dumping more and more horsepucky on us that eventually we won’t notice the smell. Or worse yet; we will think that the smell is normal.
There really isn’t anything quite like a good epidemic to get things started.
If “green” is so much better, why did anyone abandon it in the first place? If“green” was so good, there wouldn’t have been pest problems…right? How then, did manufacturers convince anyone that they needed pesticides?
For years I have noticed that the activists in the green movements don’t seem to have jobs. If they never had a real job; how did they become so expert in everyone else’s business?
Thomas Sowell once commented that “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.” I was once told to not focus on the negative aspects of a program, but rather focus on the positive aspects. I said that I would if they would just explain to me what they were. I never got an answer.
Why do we keep trying to find a third way? Clearly, in order for there to be a third way, there had to already be two different ways. It seems likely that one way had to be right and one had to be wrong. Why can’t we just take the right way?
Why is it that someone who pays twenty thousand dollars in real estate taxes won’t pay the exterminator five hundred dollars for pest control services?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
On April 14th and 15th of this year the EPA hosted something that they called the Bedbug Summit, which “drew almost 300 state and federal regulatory, public health, and housing officials, academics, landlords/property managers, pest professionals, and other key stakeholders”
On April 19th, 2009 I published a critique of EPA’s “Bedbug Summit”, called Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment, which clearly outlined what could only be called a great public relations deception and a farce. That is, if your goal is the control of bedbugs. If the goal was to misdirect, deceive and justify the creation of a massive, costly and ineffectual multilayered bureaucracy and promote ineffectual pest control programs such as IPM, then it was a smashing success. Quite frankly, it disturbed me to realize that for some reason I didn’t connect the dots at the time between this and the Butterfield bill. I know…I know…there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
Currently there is a bill introduced by Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina on May 5th, 2009 that the NPMA officially supports and has asked everyone in the structural pest control industry to openly support. The Butterfield bill is entitled, "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009", and based on what is in this bill that title is a misnomer.
NPMA believes that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings. Specifically, the bill:
On April 14th and 15th of this year the EPA hosted something that they called the Bedbug Summit, which “drew almost 300 state and federal regulatory, public health, and housing officials, academics, landlords/property managers, pest professionals, and other key stakeholders”
On April 19th, 2009 I published a critique of EPA’s “Bedbug Summit”, called Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment, which clearly outlined what could only be called a great public relations deception and a farce. That is, if your goal is the control of bedbugs. If the goal was to misdirect, deceive and justify the creation of a massive, costly and ineffectual multilayered bureaucracy and promote ineffectual pest control programs such as IPM, then it was a smashing success. Quite frankly, it disturbed me to realize that for some reason I didn’t connect the dots at the time between this and the Butterfield bill. I know…I know…there is no such thing as a conspiracy.
Currently there is a bill introduced by Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina on May 5th, 2009 that the NPMA officially supports and has asked everyone in the structural pest control industry to openly support. The Butterfield bill is entitled, "Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite Act of 2009", and based on what is in this bill that title is a misnomer.
NPMA believes that this “multi-faceted legislation provides critical resources to state and local officials to combat bed bug outbreaks in lodging facilities, residential housing and other settings. Specifically, the bill:
I. Establishes a state bed bug inspection grant program within
the Department of Commerce for states to use to help fund inspections of
lodging facilities;
II. Expands an existing grant program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services that already provides funds to states for cockroach and rodent control to be used for bed bug prevention and control;
III. Requires public housing agencies to include in annual plans,required by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, measures necessary for the management of bed bugs, similar to their current responsibility to manage cockroaches; and
IV. Directs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the public health implications of bed bugs.”
II. Expands an existing grant program managed by the Department of Health and Human Services that already provides funds to states for cockroach and rodent control to be used for bed bug prevention and control;
III. Requires public housing agencies to include in annual plans,required by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, measures necessary for the management of bed bugs, similar to their current responsibility to manage cockroaches; and
IV. Directs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate the public health implications of bed bugs.”
NPMA goes on to say that “His legislation will grant state and local governments, in concert with the professional pest management industry, the necessary resources to more effectively and aggressively manage bed bug infestations.”
Before I go any further I wish to state for the record that I am not attacking any individuals at NPMA, their integrity or their work ethic. I have stated this in the past and I will restate it again….these people work and they work hard and they believe what they are doing is in the long term best interests of the industry. In their defense they believe that this bill is going to pass, whether we are on board or not, and in the long run this will give the pest control industry some positioning on these matters for the economic future of our industry. It is that judgment and view that I wish to challenge.
Apparently Congressman Butterfield believes that the first step in eradicating bedbugs is to create a grant program administered by the Commerce Department to inspect hotels and motels for bedbugs in each state. And that each state’s hotels will have 20 percent of their rooms inspected each and every year. Those inspections will be conducted by “trained inspection personnel” and money will be provided to “train the inspectors” and they shall do the following under this bill:
I. inspections are conducted by individuals who meet the minimum
competency standard or requirement for inspecting or treating rooms in lodging
facilities for bed bugs, as adopted by the State agency charged with regulating
pest
management
II. conduct inspections of lodging facilities for cimex lectularius, including transportation, lodging and meal expenses for inspectors;
III. train inspection personnel;
IV. contract with a commercial applicator, as defined in section 2(e) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(e)), to inspect and treat lodging facilities for cimex lectularius;
V. educate the proprietors and staff of lodging establishments about methods to prevent and eradicate cimex lectularius.
management
II. conduct inspections of lodging facilities for cimex lectularius, including transportation, lodging and meal expenses for inspectors;
III. train inspection personnel;
IV. contract with a commercial applicator, as defined in section 2(e) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136(e)), to inspect and treat lodging facilities for cimex lectularius;
V. educate the proprietors and staff of lodging establishments about methods to prevent and eradicate cimex lectularius.
And what will this little program cost. Fifty million dollars a year from 2010 to 2013! First off, Congress didn’t find anything that we didn’t already know. The fact of the matter is that taxpayer money is going to be wasted; and for what will the taxpayer’s money be wasted to the tune of fifty million dollars a year? To inspect rooms for bedbugs! We already have trained inspectors….they are called exterminators and they do it for free. They already know what to tell the owners and maintenance people and they certainly know what bedbugs look like and don’t need any further training. We already have health departments requiring treatment. We already have laws in each state that determines who can make those treatments. So, why is there a need to train“new” inspectors and who will these “new” inspectors be?
I don’t believe for a minute that pest controllers will be used for these inspections, except possibly at the beginning, no matter what it says about standards. This grant money is going to be used up by state Health departments, State Universities, State Agricultural departments or whoever is in charge of pesticide regulations in the state in question and they will set the standard to accommodate themselves. And because grant money will be available, they won’t have to take the inexpensive way out and use PCO standards. This money will go to state agencies, and I believe to the Health Departments, which will make them secondary de facto regulators of the pest control industry in their states.
This is nothing more than window dressing, creating a gigantic multilayered bureaucracy with the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Center for Disease Control and state agencies all over the country. Bureaucratic activity as a substitute for accomplishment, and when was the last time you saw a bureaucracy disappear?
Nowhere does it discuss the real issue; The EPA’s responsibility for this mess and the introduction of chemistry that works. This bill will spend fifty million each year and accomplish nothing, even if hotels are treated more often. Bedbugs will still be infesting homes, other businesses, busses, trains, cabs, schools…etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, and where are the requirements for tools that will bring about proper control?
I. Inspections will not eliminate bedbugs.
II. It may fix the blame, but it won’t fix bedbugs.
III. Furthermore, I believe this will lay the ground work for more unnecessary regulations, unnecessary documented training sessions and added licensure.
IV. If that happens, and based on past history, I believe eventually that is where the grant money will go and the requirements will increase.
This isn’t leadership nor will it manage bed bugs aggressively, effectively or otherwise. We need chemistry that works. This is a singular problem with a twofold solution.
First and foremost, we have to define the real problem. We need to outline the cause. Both of those are easy. We know the EPA is a fault for this plague, we need place the blame right at their feet. We need chemistry that works, either by returning old chemistry, changing labels of chemistry that is currently available or give us new chemistry that works. (NPMA is currently working with EPA on this matter)
Everything else is a waste of money, energy, time and only gives the impression of accomplishment where very little actually exists. There is nothing in this bill that provides for anything that isn’t already being done….except for getting the fifty million dollars.
To perceive is “to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses, to discern, envision or understand. “ My "perceptions"of what is wrong with this bill were easily identified because they should have been obvious to the most casual observer.
So then, what are the “positive aspects” of this Bill?
II. It may fix the blame, but it won’t fix bedbugs.
III. Furthermore, I believe this will lay the ground work for more unnecessary regulations, unnecessary documented training sessions and added licensure.
IV. If that happens, and based on past history, I believe eventually that is where the grant money will go and the requirements will increase.
This isn’t leadership nor will it manage bed bugs aggressively, effectively or otherwise. We need chemistry that works. This is a singular problem with a twofold solution.
First and foremost, we have to define the real problem. We need to outline the cause. Both of those are easy. We know the EPA is a fault for this plague, we need place the blame right at their feet. We need chemistry that works, either by returning old chemistry, changing labels of chemistry that is currently available or give us new chemistry that works. (NPMA is currently working with EPA on this matter)
Everything else is a waste of money, energy, time and only gives the impression of accomplishment where very little actually exists. There is nothing in this bill that provides for anything that isn’t already being done….except for getting the fifty million dollars.
To perceive is “to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses, to discern, envision or understand. “ My "perceptions"of what is wrong with this bill were easily identified because they should have been obvious to the most casual observer.
So then, what are the “positive aspects” of this Bill?
I. Fifty million dollars is going to be spent every year, and
who knows how much more in the future, and yet bedbugs will not be curtailed
because of it.
Grant chasers will by positively impacted. That doesn’t seem very positive to me
except for those getting the money. Those with bedbugs will still have them.
II. A great deal of bureaucratic welfare is going to be created and still bedbugs are not going to be curtailed. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the bureaucrats.
III. Legislators will give the impression that they are doing something worthwhile to stop this plague caused by the EPA. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the legislators who will give the impression that they are actually doing something.
IV. The real cause of the problem isn’t identified. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the EPA who is responsible.
V. No new directives are part of this bill that requires EPA or anyone else to approve chemistry that works. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the pest controllers who will be getting large sums of money to control this plague with inadequate tools, and even if the tools needed to eradicate bedbugs are returned, this bureaucratic layer cake will never disappear.
Grant chasers will by positively impacted. That doesn’t seem very positive to me
except for those getting the money. Those with bedbugs will still have them.
II. A great deal of bureaucratic welfare is going to be created and still bedbugs are not going to be curtailed. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the bureaucrats.
III. Legislators will give the impression that they are doing something worthwhile to stop this plague caused by the EPA. That doesn’t sound positive to me except for the legislators who will give the impression that they are actually doing something.
IV. The real cause of the problem isn’t identified. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the EPA who is responsible.
V. No new directives are part of this bill that requires EPA or anyone else to approve chemistry that works. That doesn’t sound positive to me, except for the pest controllers who will be getting large sums of money to control this plague with inadequate tools, and even if the tools needed to eradicate bedbugs are returned, this bureaucratic layer cake will never disappear.
What about the “general public”? How will they benefit? And please don’t tell me how better communications will make a difference in their lives. That isn’t even a logical fallacy….that would be a blatant falsehood. The claim that this “proposed legislation …will be beneficial for all parties, including pest management professionals, regulatory agencies and the general public” is a fallacy of composition.
There is only one party that we should be focusing on. Not pest controllers, not regulators, and especially not regulators. The public…. It is the public and the public only who should be our one and only concern. In no way will this bill alleviate the public’s suffering. That and only that should be our concern. Everything else is horsepucky!
I would like to share a quote with everyone that, although I’m not sure, I believe that came from Thomas Sowell.
“Life is all about tides. There are those who catch the tide and those who
row against the tide. Those rowing against the tide will always go in that
direction no matter which way the tide is moving. The rest have no direction and
will simply follow the tide. Those who row against the tide are in better shape
than those who go with the tide. Not only physically, but intellectually,
emotionally and psychologically! When the tide changes direction, and it will,
guess who will be in the lead? “
Friday, May 29, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
Thomas Sowell is one of the finest thinkers and writers in the nation today. He has the unique ability to make very complex problems understandable. That… is no small skill. On a regular basis he writes a column called Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. I love reading his insights and his basic common sense, thought provoking and sometimes humorous approach about the real world. This has inspired me to publish my own “Random Thoughts”. Probably just this once….because much to my surprise…..it isn’t as easy as it seems.
I have noticed over the years that the trade journals that support our industry are filled with advertising. Many of the advertisers are pesticide manufacturers and distributors. It amazes me that the industry’s trade journals work so hard promoting “green” pest control and IPM, which is promoting the elimination of pesticides. If that happens; who will advertise in the trade journals? It kind of reminds me of those churches and ministers that went around saying that God was dead, and the Bible is a myth, and then expected the churches to be full.
It seems to me that “green” pest control and IPM are largely indefinable and must be taken as an article of faith. Should the EPA be promoting this “faith based intuitive”?
Our state and national trade associations are also working hard to promote“green” pest control and IPM. If we give in to the green activists and become“green”, will we need trade associations, or will the Sierra Club sufficiently fulfill that function?
Socialism has been an abject failure everywhere in the world where it has been tried; yet we hear socialist concepts being touted as the answer to our problems. Why? If it has failed everywhere else, why would we think it would prosper here?
When environmental policy has seriously influenced or been imposed by green activists and organizations on the third world, it consistently produced misery, squalor, disease, death and suffering. Yet we insist that these are the very same concepts and programs that we should adopt here. Why? If environmentalism promotes dystopia everywhere else in the world, why would we think that it will be different here?
If creating green jobs cost 2.2 jobs for every “green” job elsewhere in the world, why would we think it would be different here?
If green policies increase costs and reduce the quality of life everywhere else in the world; why would we think it would be different here.
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be fraudulent. James Hansen’s climate figures had easily discovered “mistakes” and the IPCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt. Why do those who promote anthropogenic climate change still cite them as sources?
When the leaders of the environmental movement make misanthropic comments about humanity and that the Earth is better off without mankind; why do we believe them when they say that we should adopt their policies, “because it is for the children”?
The greenies are against nuclear power. Then they are for it. Then they are against it again. They loved wind power. Then the hated it. They loved solar power. Then they hated it. Why is it that greenies are always hot for technology that doesn’t exist? Why is it that they hate that self same technology when it has the potential to become reality?
The green activist organizations have no command and control structure. That means they can be for and against something at the same time and still be right. Must be nice!
We have a real problem with words in this country. We love the words fair and sustainable. We just can’t define them; and yet we wish to make them the basis for programs that also can’t be defined and are therefore open ended. Much like green pest control and IPM!
We have had the “best” and “brightest” tell us that everything we have done for 60 years is all wrong. We also have had more people live longer, healthier, happier lives than ever in human history. Someone must have done something right!
No matter how much technology we develop to make life better; we keep hearing and believing that it is making us sick. Why then are we living longer?
I am convinced that the “best” and “brightest” amongst us believe that as long as they keep dumping more and more horsepucky on us that eventually we won’t notice the smell. Or worse yet; we will think that the smell is normal.
There really isn’t anything quite like a good epidemic to get things started.
If “green” is so much better, why did anyone abandon it in the first place? If“green” was so good, there wouldn’t have been pest problems…right? How then, did manufacturers convince anyone that they needed pesticides?
For years I have noticed that the activists in the green movements don’t seem to have jobs. If they never had a real job; how did they become so expert in everyone else’s business?
Thomas Sowell once commented that “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.” I was once told to not focus on the negative aspects of a program, but rather focus on the positive aspects. I said that I would if they would just explain to me what they were. I never got an answer.
Why do we keep trying to find a third way? Clearly, in order for there to be a third way, there had to already be two different ways. It seems likely that one way had to be right and one had to be wrong. Why can’t we just take the right way?
Why is it that someone who pays twenty thousand dollars in real estate taxes won’t pay the exterminator five hundred dollars for pest control services?
Thomas Sowell is one of the finest thinkers and writers in the nation today. He has the unique ability to make very complex problems understandable. That… is no small skill. On a regular basis he writes a column called Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene. I love reading his insights and his basic common sense, thought provoking and sometimes humorous approach about the real world. This has inspired me to publish my own “Random Thoughts”. Probably just this once….because much to my surprise…..it isn’t as easy as it seems.
I have noticed over the years that the trade journals that support our industry are filled with advertising. Many of the advertisers are pesticide manufacturers and distributors. It amazes me that the industry’s trade journals work so hard promoting “green” pest control and IPM, which is promoting the elimination of pesticides. If that happens; who will advertise in the trade journals? It kind of reminds me of those churches and ministers that went around saying that God was dead, and the Bible is a myth, and then expected the churches to be full.
It seems to me that “green” pest control and IPM are largely indefinable and must be taken as an article of faith. Should the EPA be promoting this “faith based intuitive”?
Our state and national trade associations are also working hard to promote“green” pest control and IPM. If we give in to the green activists and become“green”, will we need trade associations, or will the Sierra Club sufficiently fulfill that function?
Socialism has been an abject failure everywhere in the world where it has been tried; yet we hear socialist concepts being touted as the answer to our problems. Why? If it has failed everywhere else, why would we think it would prosper here?
When environmental policy has seriously influenced or been imposed by green activists and organizations on the third world, it consistently produced misery, squalor, disease, death and suffering. Yet we insist that these are the very same concepts and programs that we should adopt here. Why? If environmentalism promotes dystopia everywhere else in the world, why would we think that it will be different here?
If creating green jobs cost 2.2 jobs for every “green” job elsewhere in the world, why would we think it would be different here?
If green policies increase costs and reduce the quality of life everywhere else in the world; why would we think it would be different here.
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph has been shown to be fraudulent. James Hansen’s climate figures had easily discovered “mistakes” and the IPCC has shown itself to be thoroughly corrupt. Why do those who promote anthropogenic climate change still cite them as sources?
When the leaders of the environmental movement make misanthropic comments about humanity and that the Earth is better off without mankind; why do we believe them when they say that we should adopt their policies, “because it is for the children”?
The greenies are against nuclear power. Then they are for it. Then they are against it again. They loved wind power. Then the hated it. They loved solar power. Then they hated it. Why is it that greenies are always hot for technology that doesn’t exist? Why is it that they hate that self same technology when it has the potential to become reality?
The green activist organizations have no command and control structure. That means they can be for and against something at the same time and still be right. Must be nice!
We have a real problem with words in this country. We love the words fair and sustainable. We just can’t define them; and yet we wish to make them the basis for programs that also can’t be defined and are therefore open ended. Much like green pest control and IPM!
We have had the “best” and “brightest” tell us that everything we have done for 60 years is all wrong. We also have had more people live longer, healthier, happier lives than ever in human history. Someone must have done something right!
No matter how much technology we develop to make life better; we keep hearing and believing that it is making us sick. Why then are we living longer?
I am convinced that the “best” and “brightest” amongst us believe that as long as they keep dumping more and more horsepucky on us that eventually we won’t notice the smell. Or worse yet; we will think that the smell is normal.
There really isn’t anything quite like a good epidemic to get things started.
If “green” is so much better, why did anyone abandon it in the first place? If“green” was so good, there wouldn’t have been pest problems…right? How then, did manufacturers convince anyone that they needed pesticides?
For years I have noticed that the activists in the green movements don’t seem to have jobs. If they never had a real job; how did they become so expert in everyone else’s business?
Thomas Sowell once commented that “One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans— anything except reason.” I was once told to not focus on the negative aspects of a program, but rather focus on the positive aspects. I said that I would if they would just explain to me what they were. I never got an answer.
Why do we keep trying to find a third way? Clearly, in order for there to be a third way, there had to already be two different ways. It seems likely that one way had to be right and one had to be wrong. Why can’t we just take the right way?
Why is it that someone who pays twenty thousand dollars in real estate taxes won’t pay the exterminator five hundred dollars for pest control services?
Saturday, June 20, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
Who to believe? We absolutely KNOW that PhD’s cannot be trusted. Grant money and the desire for prestige has contaminated their ranks to the point that everything they say must be questioned. De omnibus dubitandum, (doubt everything) is supposed to be the basis for all that a true scientist does. It has become my personal motto and should be adopted by everyone else because entirely too many “scientists” doubt only those things that will stop the flow of grant money.
Those true scientists who stood against the “science” regarding anthropogenic global warming were virtually ostracized by their peers. Many lost positions and had their grants revoked, very often those two situations go hand in hand….no grant money….no job! As the years go by the grant money flowed faster and faster to promote all things green. Unfortunately they didn’t necessarily promote all things scientific. Because of the internet we see can now clearly see just how untrustworthy “scientists” can be and who the untrustworthy ones are. We can also see who can be trusted.
We now have access to all the arguments, both pro and con, on any given subject. Unfortunately many of the scares really are nothing more that con jobs that help make sure that the grant money keeps right on flowing into their corrupt hands, and that has consequences.
Once someone has made their mind up to really research information they find themselves in a quandary, where do I go to read the truth. It is difficult to know right away who to read and who to trust. It took me some time and a great deal or reading to find those worth reading. I now know who to go to in order to find out the truth on any matter in which I am interested, and that list grows every year.
I have been re-reading Steve Milloy’s book, Junk Science Judo. Milloy discusses statistics and epidemiological studies extensively in this book and how this information is manipulated and misrepresented. Really boring and complicated stuff, but in order to know what everyone is talking about you must understand how statistics, which has been described as an arcane art of the occult, actually works and how that data are molded.
Having said that I will come to the point! The last chapter of his book is entitled, “Know Your Friends” and one of them that he lists is the American Council on Science and Health, headed up by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. They don’t always agree with one another, and for that matter I don’t always agree with them, but both recognize the intrinsic integrity in each other’s work, and so do I. They’re only concerned with the facts and each is prepared to follow the facts no matter where they lead.
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health I get an update called the “Morning Dispatch” which outlines the latest news scare or latest junkscience being presented to the public through a corrupt and lazy media, and they may even agree with the latest media blitz.
I have decided to write a weekly outline on stories that interest me that ACSH sends to its members. I will share their views, with my take on it on a weekly basis because I believe that much of what they have to say isn’t being seen by enough people. Many times the story will extend over a week or a month, so I will try to condense the story each week into a few paragraphs.
Swine Flu
Each week since the swine flu made its appearance on the world scene the ACSH has been a steady voice of moderation. When it appeared that the media had the world in the grip of a disastrous worldwide plague, the ACSH outlined just how many cases there were and how many deaths actually occurred. It turned out their view that this was more hype that disaster was correct. “Dr. Henry Miller of ACSH’s Board of Trustees and Stanford University's Hoover Institution is a molecular biologist and former flu researcher who argues in the Washington Times that the swine flu pandemic was labeled as such too readily.” Part of the problem is the WHO doesn’t follow its own rules for these kinds of determination.
The latest scare is that “Brazilian scientists reported on Tuesday that they have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus”. Dr. Gill Ross states that “Influenza viruses are notoriously plastic. They change quite readily,” explains Dr. Ross. “If you analyze the genome of the currently circulating flu virus you’re going to find variability. So if the swine flu virus does mutate to become more virulent, it will most likely still contain many of the same antigens. The vaccine being developed and produced for this new H1N1 variant should still provide substantial protection, and it should still prevent a lot of cases.”
Dr. Ross likes that idea that that CDC under Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has decided to offer vaccinations against this virus right in the schools next year. Noting that “It’s a convenient location, and giving an intramuscular flu shot is a straightforward procedure. School nurses are more than qualified to do it.” Also, theFDA has been targeting websites that peddle fraudulent swine flu prevention and treatment products.
Many of you may too young to remember polio because Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine to prevent it in the 1950’s. However, he created his vaccine from dead cells, which the epidemiological world hated because he violated their first law….all vaccines had to be created from live cells. Later the Sabin vaccine was developed (from live cells) and was introduced to the general population…for free as I recall….in sugar cubes at schools. I remember the long lines and I also remember that these efforts eradicated polio…except for those few who contracted it from the live cells vaccine. There never was a case from the Salk vaccine, which I took early on. I found them to be three very painful shots, which made the Sabin vaccine much more popular….but no cases of polio from it.
Zicam
Homeopathic treatments apparently don’t need FDA approval and therefore they don’t go through the testing as would be expected of pharmaceuticals. Matrixx Initiatives, the manufacturer of Zicam has been ordered to stop selling intranasal cold remedies after more than 130 reports of people who lost their sense of smell after using the zinc-based, homeopathic products. “A public health advisory posted on the FDA website said the products “have all been associated with long-lasting or permanent loss of smell” and “have not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the duration and severity of cold symptoms.”
Stier says that “This is a problem because homeopathic supplements are like other diet supplements under the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 in that they don’t need to be proven effective or even safe. This law’s deferential treatment of dietary supplements is based on the unscientific notion that ‘natural’ cures are somehow safer.” ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross would like to know just how dangerous is this product? If this was a pharmaceutical the activists would be screaming to the heavens….but not a peep when it is “all natural”. And you wonder who can be trusted.
ADHD
Here is an area in which I have some personal concerns. ACSH agrees with this judgment. Regulators have advised parents to continue medicating their children for ADHD despite the risk of sudden death suggested by a study that used questionable methods. I have some personal experience with this issue of children being drugged for “acting” up. I have heard accounts of these drugs working wonders on children, and I believe these accounts. I have heard the opposite, and I believe those also. I also question the way it is determined whether treatment really is necessary. Maybe that is the real issue. Those who really need treatment versus those who are just difficult! I also have misgivings as to what these drugs do to them as they hit their teen years. I hate saying this, but If children are being prescribed drugs when they don’t really need them (which I believe is an ongoing problem with this issue) what are the long term effects.
Fortified Foods
The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday examining the latest trend of fortifying foods with extra nutrients. ACSH’s Dr. Ruth Kava adds: “There are no daily requirements established for many of these added compounds, so there’s no way for a consumer to know if the amount in a particular food will be too little, just right, or excessive.”
For more information, see ACSH’s publication on functional foods.
Anti-Aging Hormones
Recently I linked an article in Green Notes that highlighted the Oprah Winfrey show and her “expert” guests (who she apparently agrees with) promoting all sorts of unscientific horsepucky. Their only real qualification is that they are celebrities who are paid huge sums of money to mouth other people’s words while pretending to be someone else. When are people going to stop listening to this woman?
“At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, the American Medical Association echoed ACSH staffers’ assessment that there's no scientific evidence to justify the claims of anti-aging hormones,including the so-called “bio-identicals” touted by celebrity non-expert Suzanne Sommers. These hormones are not just ineffective for their touted purpose, they can also be dangerous when used without medical direction.” says Dr. Ruth Kava.
Integrity Exemplified
This story is rich in irony. The Center for Science in the Public Interest accused the American Council on Science and Health of being a shill for those who support and donate to them. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan told them that if they really think that donating money to ACSH will change their views, then they should sponsor them and see what happens. They never did send a check and here we have the ultimate irony. CSPI is threatening to sue “Bayer Healthcare if it continues to claim its One-A-Day vitamins for men reduce the risk of prostate cancer” and ACSH says that they will “join CSPI in criticizing Bayer “ in spite of CSPI’s claims of bias…which is really the pot calling the kettle black. And just think……CSPI never sent a check! Of course when all you are concerned about is the facts the decision is an easy one.
Ejeta Wins World Food Prize
Ethiopian geneticist Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University was honored with the 2009 World Food Prize for developing strains of sorghum that are resistant to drought and the parasitic weed Striga. “This is something that people across the spectrum from the left to the right should be celebrating,” says Stier. Even so, ACSH staffers doubt that we'll hear any endorsements of this lifesaving research from the anti-chemical activists at Greenpeace and similar groups.”Let’s face it….they are not about saving lives…that is the shtick they use to convince everyone to adopt practices and policies that will actually cause disease, squalor, misery, suffering and death.
Dangerous Side Effects, Dangerous Labels
If you really read the potential side effects of everything that goes into your mouth you wouldn’t eat. The same can be true of drugs. According to an Associated Press article on Friday,“After fifteen months of investigation, the Food and Drug Administration said Merck & Co. Inc., AstraZeneca, and Cornerstone Therapeutics will have to raise label warnings about psychiatric problems reported by a handful of patients taking their [asthma] drugs.” Potential problems include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and insomnia.
“Hopefully, this won’t follow the trend of counterproductive and unanticipated effects of excessive black-box warnings from the FDA,” says Dr. Ross. “Some people correctly read them as alerts that there can be these effects, but some doctors and parents of sick children will be so fearful that they won’t give kids the medication they require.” “The most effective solution to a problem like this is for parents and doctors to pay attention to possible effects that a medication might be having on their child,” says Dr. Kava, “but of course, that’s true for any medicine.”
For more information, including asthma treatment options, see ACSH’s publication on asthma.
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online HERE, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225
Who to believe? We absolutely KNOW that PhD’s cannot be trusted. Grant money and the desire for prestige has contaminated their ranks to the point that everything they say must be questioned. De omnibus dubitandum, (doubt everything) is supposed to be the basis for all that a true scientist does. It has become my personal motto and should be adopted by everyone else because entirely too many “scientists” doubt only those things that will stop the flow of grant money.
Those true scientists who stood against the “science” regarding anthropogenic global warming were virtually ostracized by their peers. Many lost positions and had their grants revoked, very often those two situations go hand in hand….no grant money….no job! As the years go by the grant money flowed faster and faster to promote all things green. Unfortunately they didn’t necessarily promote all things scientific. Because of the internet we see can now clearly see just how untrustworthy “scientists” can be and who the untrustworthy ones are. We can also see who can be trusted.
We now have access to all the arguments, both pro and con, on any given subject. Unfortunately many of the scares really are nothing more that con jobs that help make sure that the grant money keeps right on flowing into their corrupt hands, and that has consequences.
Once someone has made their mind up to really research information they find themselves in a quandary, where do I go to read the truth. It is difficult to know right away who to read and who to trust. It took me some time and a great deal or reading to find those worth reading. I now know who to go to in order to find out the truth on any matter in which I am interested, and that list grows every year.
I have been re-reading Steve Milloy’s book, Junk Science Judo. Milloy discusses statistics and epidemiological studies extensively in this book and how this information is manipulated and misrepresented. Really boring and complicated stuff, but in order to know what everyone is talking about you must understand how statistics, which has been described as an arcane art of the occult, actually works and how that data are molded.
Having said that I will come to the point! The last chapter of his book is entitled, “Know Your Friends” and one of them that he lists is the American Council on Science and Health, headed up by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. They don’t always agree with one another, and for that matter I don’t always agree with them, but both recognize the intrinsic integrity in each other’s work, and so do I. They’re only concerned with the facts and each is prepared to follow the facts no matter where they lead.
As a member of the American Council on Science and Health I get an update called the “Morning Dispatch” which outlines the latest news scare or latest junkscience being presented to the public through a corrupt and lazy media, and they may even agree with the latest media blitz.
I have decided to write a weekly outline on stories that interest me that ACSH sends to its members. I will share their views, with my take on it on a weekly basis because I believe that much of what they have to say isn’t being seen by enough people. Many times the story will extend over a week or a month, so I will try to condense the story each week into a few paragraphs.
Swine Flu
Each week since the swine flu made its appearance on the world scene the ACSH has been a steady voice of moderation. When it appeared that the media had the world in the grip of a disastrous worldwide plague, the ACSH outlined just how many cases there were and how many deaths actually occurred. It turned out their view that this was more hype that disaster was correct. “Dr. Henry Miller of ACSH’s Board of Trustees and Stanford University's Hoover Institution is a molecular biologist and former flu researcher who argues in the Washington Times that the swine flu pandemic was labeled as such too readily.” Part of the problem is the WHO doesn’t follow its own rules for these kinds of determination.
The latest scare is that “Brazilian scientists reported on Tuesday that they have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus”. Dr. Gill Ross states that “Influenza viruses are notoriously plastic. They change quite readily,” explains Dr. Ross. “If you analyze the genome of the currently circulating flu virus you’re going to find variability. So if the swine flu virus does mutate to become more virulent, it will most likely still contain many of the same antigens. The vaccine being developed and produced for this new H1N1 variant should still provide substantial protection, and it should still prevent a lot of cases.”
Dr. Ross likes that idea that that CDC under Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has decided to offer vaccinations against this virus right in the schools next year. Noting that “It’s a convenient location, and giving an intramuscular flu shot is a straightforward procedure. School nurses are more than qualified to do it.” Also, theFDA has been targeting websites that peddle fraudulent swine flu prevention and treatment products.
Many of you may too young to remember polio because Jonas Salk discovered a vaccine to prevent it in the 1950’s. However, he created his vaccine from dead cells, which the epidemiological world hated because he violated their first law….all vaccines had to be created from live cells. Later the Sabin vaccine was developed (from live cells) and was introduced to the general population…for free as I recall….in sugar cubes at schools. I remember the long lines and I also remember that these efforts eradicated polio…except for those few who contracted it from the live cells vaccine. There never was a case from the Salk vaccine, which I took early on. I found them to be three very painful shots, which made the Sabin vaccine much more popular….but no cases of polio from it.
Zicam
Homeopathic treatments apparently don’t need FDA approval and therefore they don’t go through the testing as would be expected of pharmaceuticals. Matrixx Initiatives, the manufacturer of Zicam has been ordered to stop selling intranasal cold remedies after more than 130 reports of people who lost their sense of smell after using the zinc-based, homeopathic products. “A public health advisory posted on the FDA website said the products “have all been associated with long-lasting or permanent loss of smell” and “have not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the duration and severity of cold symptoms.”
Stier says that “This is a problem because homeopathic supplements are like other diet supplements under the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994 in that they don’t need to be proven effective or even safe. This law’s deferential treatment of dietary supplements is based on the unscientific notion that ‘natural’ cures are somehow safer.” ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross would like to know just how dangerous is this product? If this was a pharmaceutical the activists would be screaming to the heavens….but not a peep when it is “all natural”. And you wonder who can be trusted.
ADHD
Here is an area in which I have some personal concerns. ACSH agrees with this judgment. Regulators have advised parents to continue medicating their children for ADHD despite the risk of sudden death suggested by a study that used questionable methods. I have some personal experience with this issue of children being drugged for “acting” up. I have heard accounts of these drugs working wonders on children, and I believe these accounts. I have heard the opposite, and I believe those also. I also question the way it is determined whether treatment really is necessary. Maybe that is the real issue. Those who really need treatment versus those who are just difficult! I also have misgivings as to what these drugs do to them as they hit their teen years. I hate saying this, but If children are being prescribed drugs when they don’t really need them (which I believe is an ongoing problem with this issue) what are the long term effects.
Fortified Foods
The Wall Street Journal published an article yesterday examining the latest trend of fortifying foods with extra nutrients. ACSH’s Dr. Ruth Kava adds: “There are no daily requirements established for many of these added compounds, so there’s no way for a consumer to know if the amount in a particular food will be too little, just right, or excessive.”
For more information, see ACSH’s publication on functional foods.
Anti-Aging Hormones
Recently I linked an article in Green Notes that highlighted the Oprah Winfrey show and her “expert” guests (who she apparently agrees with) promoting all sorts of unscientific horsepucky. Their only real qualification is that they are celebrities who are paid huge sums of money to mouth other people’s words while pretending to be someone else. When are people going to stop listening to this woman?
“At their annual meeting in Chicago on Monday, the American Medical Association echoed ACSH staffers’ assessment that there's no scientific evidence to justify the claims of anti-aging hormones,including the so-called “bio-identicals” touted by celebrity non-expert Suzanne Sommers. These hormones are not just ineffective for their touted purpose, they can also be dangerous when used without medical direction.” says Dr. Ruth Kava.
Integrity Exemplified
This story is rich in irony. The Center for Science in the Public Interest accused the American Council on Science and Health of being a shill for those who support and donate to them. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan told them that if they really think that donating money to ACSH will change their views, then they should sponsor them and see what happens. They never did send a check and here we have the ultimate irony. CSPI is threatening to sue “Bayer Healthcare if it continues to claim its One-A-Day vitamins for men reduce the risk of prostate cancer” and ACSH says that they will “join CSPI in criticizing Bayer “ in spite of CSPI’s claims of bias…which is really the pot calling the kettle black. And just think……CSPI never sent a check! Of course when all you are concerned about is the facts the decision is an easy one.
Ejeta Wins World Food Prize
Ethiopian geneticist Gebisa Ejeta of Purdue University was honored with the 2009 World Food Prize for developing strains of sorghum that are resistant to drought and the parasitic weed Striga. “This is something that people across the spectrum from the left to the right should be celebrating,” says Stier. Even so, ACSH staffers doubt that we'll hear any endorsements of this lifesaving research from the anti-chemical activists at Greenpeace and similar groups.”Let’s face it….they are not about saving lives…that is the shtick they use to convince everyone to adopt practices and policies that will actually cause disease, squalor, misery, suffering and death.
Dangerous Side Effects, Dangerous Labels
If you really read the potential side effects of everything that goes into your mouth you wouldn’t eat. The same can be true of drugs. According to an Associated Press article on Friday,“After fifteen months of investigation, the Food and Drug Administration said Merck & Co. Inc., AstraZeneca, and Cornerstone Therapeutics will have to raise label warnings about psychiatric problems reported by a handful of patients taking their [asthma] drugs.” Potential problems include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, and insomnia.
“Hopefully, this won’t follow the trend of counterproductive and unanticipated effects of excessive black-box warnings from the FDA,” says Dr. Ross. “Some people correctly read them as alerts that there can be these effects, but some doctors and parents of sick children will be so fearful that they won’t give kids the medication they require.” “The most effective solution to a problem like this is for parents and doctors to pay attention to possible effects that a medication might be having on their child,” says Dr. Kava, “but of course, that’s true for any medicine.”
For more information, including asthma treatment options, see ACSH’s publication on asthma.
ACSH's Morning Dispatch, written by Curtis Porter, is an exclusive chance to sit with us at our "virtual" breakfast table each morning -- and is limited only to our family of supporters.
Donors have ACSH experts at the "click of a mouse." Have a question or comment? Thought we missed something? Send it to AskACSH@acsh.org and ACSH will address it in a future Morning Dispatch issue or video commentary.
To join us at the breakfast table, anyone can give a gift to ACSH securely online HERE, or by sending a tax-deductible donation to:
American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10023
For questions, call 212-362-7044 x225
By Rich
Kozlovich
Did you ever have a SHAZAM moment? All of a sudden you get this flash of insight…. SHAZAM ….all of a sudden we understand something that we have been working on mentally for some time, maybe even years. As I grow older I find that this happens much more often than in years gone by. How does that happen? I can tell you that age makes up a part of it, because clearly the brain’s abilities change as we grow older. I read James A. Michener’s book “The Source”when I was 19 and enjoyed it. I read it again when I was 30 and understood it.
The ability to draw correct conclusions from incomplete data is a work of the brain that is a very necessary gift, but there still has to be a reason for it. Everyone has this ability in varying degrees, but are we capable of training our minds to do it better? I believe so! I believe that this is done by absorbing a great deal of information and thinking a great deal about a great many small things. All of this is being filed and correlated by the brain without any conscious effort on our part. Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. A bit here, a bit there and all of a sudden..SHAZAM... you have the whole story with the informational gaps filled in automatically. How large those gaps are depends on the individual. That at least was my analysis of what was happening.
Scientists have always been interested in what they call Eureka moments. I recently read an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 19th entitled “A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight -Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain’s Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming”.
The article outlined some examples such as Archimedes discovering how to calculate density and volume while taking a bath. Sir Isaac Newton allegedly discovered the law of universal gravity by being hit on the head by an apple, Descartes developed what is now known as coordinate geometry by watching flies, Einstein was thinking about trains and lightening when the idea of special relativity flashed into his head and Tesla was walking with a cane when he first thought of alternating current.
They report that there is a difference between analytical thinking and insightful thinking and “daydreaming” is the key. “Kalina Christoff of the University of British Columbia on Vancouver makes the point that the “mind wandering is a much more active state that we ever imagined, much more active than during reasoning with a complex problem.” She suspects that the flypaper of an unfocused mind may trap new ideas unexpected and associations more effectively than methodical reasoning. That may create the mental framework for new ideas. You can see regions of these networks becoming active just prior to people arriving at an insight.”
No one really knows what triggers SHAZAM moments, but reflection, meditation, daydreaming, or whatever you may wish to call it, allows the mind to work unhindered by structure. The brain can’t work on anything if there isn’t anything there to work on though. Reading may cause eye trouble, but the lack of reading definitely causes ignorance.
Another article that caught my eye in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Thursday, June 25th was another example of why it is impossible to deal with or please the greenies.
It appears there’s a 58 foot high dam on the Cuyahoga River near Akron, Ohio called the Gorge Metro Dam. A company wants to turn this small dam into a small hydroelectric power plant that will serve about 2,000 homes. Green...right? The dam is already there...right? All that is required is to alter it a bit by putting the plant there and create access roads to it...right...how green can you be? Well…that is the rub.
The project is being stopped by the Ohio EPA and the Summit County Metro Parks and about 20 other groups who claim the dam serves no useful purpose, impairs water quality and prevents fish from moving upstream, so therefore the dam should be torn down. Furthermore, the project would require clearing four acres of part for a new road and the plant itself and that would ”potentially endanger plant species”.
I thought that was really interesting because when they stocked Lake Erie with Coho salmon and they went upriver they died…on someone else's property, and really made a huge stink. Without creating next year’s brood because the water quality is natually unsuitable for reproduction. What about other fish. Who cares? They aren’t salmon and will adapt.
It gets better. Remember this is a “renewable” energy source to 2,000 homes. That also is the rub because it is “only” 2,000 homes. What if it was for 200,000 homes? They would then say that the project was entirely too big versus entirely too small. It gets better. They refuse to even allow them to conduct an environmental impact study to “demonstrate the benign nature of the project”.
There is no green that is green enough to satisfy those who are “green”.I wonder if there is anything green enough to satisfy those who are insane. Oh wait...SHAZAM...They are green!
Did you ever have a SHAZAM moment? All of a sudden you get this flash of insight…. SHAZAM ….all of a sudden we understand something that we have been working on mentally for some time, maybe even years. As I grow older I find that this happens much more often than in years gone by. How does that happen? I can tell you that age makes up a part of it, because clearly the brain’s abilities change as we grow older. I read James A. Michener’s book “The Source”when I was 19 and enjoyed it. I read it again when I was 30 and understood it.
The ability to draw correct conclusions from incomplete data is a work of the brain that is a very necessary gift, but there still has to be a reason for it. Everyone has this ability in varying degrees, but are we capable of training our minds to do it better? I believe so! I believe that this is done by absorbing a great deal of information and thinking a great deal about a great many small things. All of this is being filed and correlated by the brain without any conscious effort on our part. Eventually we will have a brain full of seemingly disparate and useless information that will come together into some cohesive form. A bit here, a bit there and all of a sudden..SHAZAM... you have the whole story with the informational gaps filled in automatically. How large those gaps are depends on the individual. That at least was my analysis of what was happening.
Scientists have always been interested in what they call Eureka moments. I recently read an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 19th entitled “A Wandering Mind Heads Straight Toward Insight -Researchers Map the Anatomy of the Brain’s Breakthrough Moments and Reveal the Payoff of Daydreaming”.
The article outlined some examples such as Archimedes discovering how to calculate density and volume while taking a bath. Sir Isaac Newton allegedly discovered the law of universal gravity by being hit on the head by an apple, Descartes developed what is now known as coordinate geometry by watching flies, Einstein was thinking about trains and lightening when the idea of special relativity flashed into his head and Tesla was walking with a cane when he first thought of alternating current.
They report that there is a difference between analytical thinking and insightful thinking and “daydreaming” is the key. “Kalina Christoff of the University of British Columbia on Vancouver makes the point that the “mind wandering is a much more active state that we ever imagined, much more active than during reasoning with a complex problem.” She suspects that the flypaper of an unfocused mind may trap new ideas unexpected and associations more effectively than methodical reasoning. That may create the mental framework for new ideas. You can see regions of these networks becoming active just prior to people arriving at an insight.”
No one really knows what triggers SHAZAM moments, but reflection, meditation, daydreaming, or whatever you may wish to call it, allows the mind to work unhindered by structure. The brain can’t work on anything if there isn’t anything there to work on though. Reading may cause eye trouble, but the lack of reading definitely causes ignorance.
Another article that caught my eye in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Thursday, June 25th was another example of why it is impossible to deal with or please the greenies.
It appears there’s a 58 foot high dam on the Cuyahoga River near Akron, Ohio called the Gorge Metro Dam. A company wants to turn this small dam into a small hydroelectric power plant that will serve about 2,000 homes. Green...right? The dam is already there...right? All that is required is to alter it a bit by putting the plant there and create access roads to it...right...how green can you be? Well…that is the rub.
The project is being stopped by the Ohio EPA and the Summit County Metro Parks and about 20 other groups who claim the dam serves no useful purpose, impairs water quality and prevents fish from moving upstream, so therefore the dam should be torn down. Furthermore, the project would require clearing four acres of part for a new road and the plant itself and that would ”potentially endanger plant species”.
I thought that was really interesting because when they stocked Lake Erie with Coho salmon and they went upriver they died…on someone else's property, and really made a huge stink. Without creating next year’s brood because the water quality is natually unsuitable for reproduction. What about other fish. Who cares? They aren’t salmon and will adapt.
It gets better. Remember this is a “renewable” energy source to 2,000 homes. That also is the rub because it is “only” 2,000 homes. What if it was for 200,000 homes? They would then say that the project was entirely too big versus entirely too small. It gets better. They refuse to even allow them to conduct an environmental impact study to “demonstrate the benign nature of the project”.
There is no green that is green enough to satisfy those who are “green”.I wonder if there is anything green enough to satisfy those who are insane. Oh wait...SHAZAM...They are green!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
I originally ran this article on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 in my original blog. There has been a lot of activity in our industry lately. In Ohio and at the national level! Perhaps that is why this article kept coming into my mind. Nothing in particular that I can point my finger at....it just kept nagging at me. So with some small changes I have chosen to re-run it. RK
Updated 11-06-11. RK
Recently I have had an e-mail debate with someone (who will not permit me to publish the debate) who kept accusing me of not being an original thinker. It was a point I was more than willing to concede, since I am more concerned with factual thinking versus original thinking. This person seemed to think this was the linchpin of his logic, because he kept making it over and over again. His last comment was that no matter how hard I tried I was never going to be an original thinker. No matter how many times I agreed with him he kept irrationally making the charge as if it was some new and terrible insight that I should care about. This silly debate did however trigger a series of questions in my mind.
I originally ran this article on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 in my original blog. There has been a lot of activity in our industry lately. In Ohio and at the national level! Perhaps that is why this article kept coming into my mind. Nothing in particular that I can point my finger at....it just kept nagging at me. So with some small changes I have chosen to re-run it. RK
Updated 11-06-11. RK
Recently I have had an e-mail debate with someone (who will not permit me to publish the debate) who kept accusing me of not being an original thinker. It was a point I was more than willing to concede, since I am more concerned with factual thinking versus original thinking. This person seemed to think this was the linchpin of his logic, because he kept making it over and over again. His last comment was that no matter how hard I tried I was never going to be an original thinker. No matter how many times I agreed with him he kept irrationally making the charge as if it was some new and terrible insight that I should care about. This silly debate did however trigger a series of questions in my mind.
1. What is an original thinker?
2. What constitutes original thinking?
3. Who decides what is original?
4. What makes original thinking so important?
5. Does original thinking have to be factual?
6. Is original thinking more important than factual thinking?
7. Is original thinking only philosophical and is philosophical thinking the only original thoughts?
8. If original thinking is only philosophical, why should it be taken seriously?
9. Is original thinking contrary to traditional thinking?
10. Is original thinking contrary to conventional thinking?
11. Is original thinking actually conventional thinking?
12. If it becomes conventional and or traditional thinking is it original anymore?
13. Can original thinking become conventional or traditional thinking?
14. How often do we think originally?
15. If we think originally all the time, how many times can we be right?
16. Is original thinking actually retread old thinking couched in new terms?
17. Are new thinking and original thinking the same thing? Is it neither?
18. Lastly, is there really such a thing as original thinking?
2. What constitutes original thinking?
3. Who decides what is original?
4. What makes original thinking so important?
5. Does original thinking have to be factual?
6. Is original thinking more important than factual thinking?
7. Is original thinking only philosophical and is philosophical thinking the only original thoughts?
8. If original thinking is only philosophical, why should it be taken seriously?
9. Is original thinking contrary to traditional thinking?
10. Is original thinking contrary to conventional thinking?
11. Is original thinking actually conventional thinking?
12. If it becomes conventional and or traditional thinking is it original anymore?
13. Can original thinking become conventional or traditional thinking?
14. How often do we think originally?
15. If we think originally all the time, how many times can we be right?
16. Is original thinking actually retread old thinking couched in new terms?
17. Are new thinking and original thinking the same thing? Is it neither?
18. Lastly, is there really such a thing as original thinking?
I was interested in what others thought about these points and sent these questions out to my Green Notes net. The first respondent was Frank Gasperini who worked at RISE at the time. Frank has graciously allowed me to reprint his comments.
Rich,
Not a direct answer, but a few Saturday morning 'musings". Original thinking is a wonderful and important thing, our world would not be the same without it, however if you think about "original thinkers" and the product of their ideas through reading history, you will find that the so called "original thinker" often completely misunderstood or failed to recognize the significance of his work-product--- and--- that those of us who embrace the concept of "Innovative Imitation" tend to be the ones who not only thrive and profit, but present humankind with the real benefits of the "original thinker's" work. This does not in any way denigrate the "original thinker", but it certainly does justify and elevate the role of the "innovative imitator".
Remember the old adage about pioneers--- 'the pioneer is the one likely to take the arrows, the pilgrim who follows ends up developing and owning the farm'. I once worked for the company that invented Gortex, but while they believed it to be a wonderful and "elegant" discovery, did not see any real value for it and thus "spun it off" to some ex-employees. I bet they wish they had kept that product--- but they invented it, failed to capitalize on its value because they only wanted to "original" things with it, not use it to do a better job of "old" things, and certainly not to "copy" anything someone else may have thought of.
There is an OLD "Harvard Business Review" classic article titled "Innovative Imitation" (mid 1970s?). It discussed in detail how innovators, 'pure researchers', and companies 'long on science and technology, but short on adaptability and willingness to imitate' end up inventing wonderful ideas that someone else profits from after they go belly-up. The old concept of 'if we didn't invent it (original thinking), we are not interested in it almost killed American industry at one point--- do you recall any "original thinking" from "Japan, Inc."? No, they took the best ideas developed by the world's "original thinkers" and improved and simplified them to fill the needs of real people!
Well, enough of a rant. I no longer consider myself a scientist, I am no longer interested in "elegant, or original thinking" for its own sake--- I am interested in ideas that make the lives of people easier and better, that protect people and the environment from harm, and whose benefits outweigh the risks. And, yes I am willing to take risks as long as they are outweighed by the benefits.
Frank
Not a direct answer, but a few Saturday morning 'musings". Original thinking is a wonderful and important thing, our world would not be the same without it, however if you think about "original thinkers" and the product of their ideas through reading history, you will find that the so called "original thinker" often completely misunderstood or failed to recognize the significance of his work-product--- and--- that those of us who embrace the concept of "Innovative Imitation" tend to be the ones who not only thrive and profit, but present humankind with the real benefits of the "original thinker's" work. This does not in any way denigrate the "original thinker", but it certainly does justify and elevate the role of the "innovative imitator".
Remember the old adage about pioneers--- 'the pioneer is the one likely to take the arrows, the pilgrim who follows ends up developing and owning the farm'. I once worked for the company that invented Gortex, but while they believed it to be a wonderful and "elegant" discovery, did not see any real value for it and thus "spun it off" to some ex-employees. I bet they wish they had kept that product--- but they invented it, failed to capitalize on its value because they only wanted to "original" things with it, not use it to do a better job of "old" things, and certainly not to "copy" anything someone else may have thought of.
There is an OLD "Harvard Business Review" classic article titled "Innovative Imitation" (mid 1970s?). It discussed in detail how innovators, 'pure researchers', and companies 'long on science and technology, but short on adaptability and willingness to imitate' end up inventing wonderful ideas that someone else profits from after they go belly-up. The old concept of 'if we didn't invent it (original thinking), we are not interested in it almost killed American industry at one point--- do you recall any "original thinking" from "Japan, Inc."? No, they took the best ideas developed by the world's "original thinkers" and improved and simplified them to fill the needs of real people!
Well, enough of a rant. I no longer consider myself a scientist, I am no longer interested in "elegant, or original thinking" for its own sake--- I am interested in ideas that make the lives of people easier and better, that protect people and the environment from harm, and whose benefits outweigh the risks. And, yes I am willing to take risks as long as they are outweighed by the benefits.
Frank
Since I
had some errands to run I had time to think about what all was said, I came to
the conclusion that there are really two types of original thinkers.
The first represent what I call the “nuts and bolts” thinkers. These are the people that actually come up with products and services that benefit society. This type absolutely relies on truthful information. The success is in the facts. These are people that are the “doers, and builders rather than the vandals and vacant philosophers”.
The second type of original thinker is what I call the “ideological” thinkers. These people rely on concepts and philosophy that may or may not be factual. History is replete with these types of individuals. They have the tendency to adopt the attitude, “I am going to get the truth out there and I don’t care how many lies I have to tell”.
The 20th century has had more than its share of these “ideological thinkers”. (Please view this 11-04-11 article written by Ellis Washington entitled,Alfred Kinsey's sexual revolution, where he discusses many of these "original thinkers"! RK)
Marx started a philosophical political movement that was the basis for socialism and communism. Among the great murderers of the 20th century were Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Pot Pol. It has been estimated these socialist/communists (Hitler was a socialist by the way) original thinkers killed over 100 million people.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey under the guise of science set patterns of behavior into motion that has had serious social consequences ever since. Because of them society could now justify why it was acceptable to abandon values that are absolutely essential for maintaining a stable society.
Rachel Carson can be directly blamed for the death of millions as a result of her work to eliminate DDT. Although “junk science” has always existed (snake oil salesmen are a good example) and was practiced by the above mentioned people, Carson’s greatest achievement is that her success as a junk scientist was so profound she could reasonably be called the mother of modern junk science. Her acolytes have made it policy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of original thinkers in the 20th century who caused devastation in their wake. Sadly, if you are to believe the reports of their personal lives there is every indication these people all had serious emotional problems and no affection for the traditional values they set out to destroy, nor did they have a deep attachment to facts, especially those facts that are not in harmony with their brand of “original thinking”.
Consistency is somewhat of an alien concept for them also. The first Earth Day the greenies screamed that humanity faced “a new ice age”; and the reason? Industrial pollution in the atmosphere! Today they scream “global warming” and the reason; Industrial pollution in the atmosphere.
Con artists and “ideological thinkers” have a great deal in common. Call it a shell game, three or card Monte or for that matter the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accord or whatever works to fool the public, it’s all the same. Is this really original? Both of these international agreements are based on science that was dubious at best at the very beginning and as more current information comes to light it appears to be wrong.
Using misinformation to attain the goals of power and money is nothing new. The tools and names of those tools may change over time, but it is still about power and money. There is nothing original about that at all. That bodes well the question; is there really any “original thinking” if it doesn’t produce products and services to make life better?
I think the phrase “original thinker” is over used. When people use it as a condemnation of those that disagree with them, it is a cop out so as to not answer the challenges to their “ideological thinking”. It is a form of intimidation that says; “you had better not disagree with me or you are a backward thinker”, or as I was recently called..."a flat Earther" because of my views on IPM in structural pest control
I have concluded that in areas of ideology and philosophy there are no original thinkers, no original thoughts and no original outcomes. It turns out there really isn’t anything new under the sun. The fact is that those that proclaim they are original thinkers have in reality become a herd of non-conformists being washed back and forth by the latest philosophical flavor of the day. They are a bunch “self perpetuating head nodders sitting in an echo chamber of self congratulations” who aggrandize themselves by calling themselves global problem solvers. For ideological thinking to become original thinking it must be just as concerned with facts as “nuts and bolts thinking”. Otherwise it is just three card Monte.
For those that would accuse me of not being an original thinker, I say - Thank You!
The first represent what I call the “nuts and bolts” thinkers. These are the people that actually come up with products and services that benefit society. This type absolutely relies on truthful information. The success is in the facts. These are people that are the “doers, and builders rather than the vandals and vacant philosophers”.
The second type of original thinker is what I call the “ideological” thinkers. These people rely on concepts and philosophy that may or may not be factual. History is replete with these types of individuals. They have the tendency to adopt the attitude, “I am going to get the truth out there and I don’t care how many lies I have to tell”.
The 20th century has had more than its share of these “ideological thinkers”. (Please view this 11-04-11 article written by Ellis Washington entitled,Alfred Kinsey's sexual revolution, where he discusses many of these "original thinkers"! RK)
Marx started a philosophical political movement that was the basis for socialism and communism. Among the great murderers of the 20th century were Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Pot Pol. It has been estimated these socialist/communists (Hitler was a socialist by the way) original thinkers killed over 100 million people.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey under the guise of science set patterns of behavior into motion that has had serious social consequences ever since. Because of them society could now justify why it was acceptable to abandon values that are absolutely essential for maintaining a stable society.
Rachel Carson can be directly blamed for the death of millions as a result of her work to eliminate DDT. Although “junk science” has always existed (snake oil salesmen are a good example) and was practiced by the above mentioned people, Carson’s greatest achievement is that her success as a junk scientist was so profound she could reasonably be called the mother of modern junk science. Her acolytes have made it policy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg of original thinkers in the 20th century who caused devastation in their wake. Sadly, if you are to believe the reports of their personal lives there is every indication these people all had serious emotional problems and no affection for the traditional values they set out to destroy, nor did they have a deep attachment to facts, especially those facts that are not in harmony with their brand of “original thinking”.
Consistency is somewhat of an alien concept for them also. The first Earth Day the greenies screamed that humanity faced “a new ice age”; and the reason? Industrial pollution in the atmosphere! Today they scream “global warming” and the reason; Industrial pollution in the atmosphere.
Con artists and “ideological thinkers” have a great deal in common. Call it a shell game, three or card Monte or for that matter the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accord or whatever works to fool the public, it’s all the same. Is this really original? Both of these international agreements are based on science that was dubious at best at the very beginning and as more current information comes to light it appears to be wrong.
Using misinformation to attain the goals of power and money is nothing new. The tools and names of those tools may change over time, but it is still about power and money. There is nothing original about that at all. That bodes well the question; is there really any “original thinking” if it doesn’t produce products and services to make life better?
I think the phrase “original thinker” is over used. When people use it as a condemnation of those that disagree with them, it is a cop out so as to not answer the challenges to their “ideological thinking”. It is a form of intimidation that says; “you had better not disagree with me or you are a backward thinker”, or as I was recently called..."a flat Earther" because of my views on IPM in structural pest control
I have concluded that in areas of ideology and philosophy there are no original thinkers, no original thoughts and no original outcomes. It turns out there really isn’t anything new under the sun. The fact is that those that proclaim they are original thinkers have in reality become a herd of non-conformists being washed back and forth by the latest philosophical flavor of the day. They are a bunch “self perpetuating head nodders sitting in an echo chamber of self congratulations” who aggrandize themselves by calling themselves global problem solvers. For ideological thinking to become original thinking it must be just as concerned with facts as “nuts and bolts thinking”. Otherwise it is just three card Monte.
For those that would accuse me of not being an original thinker, I say - Thank You!
"Some
ideas seem so plausible that they can fail nine times in a row and still be
believed the tenth time. Other ideas seem so implausible that they can succeed
nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth time." - Thomas
Sowell
Thursday, July 16, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
This first appeared on June 18, 2006. This is a lead in article to two other hard hitting articles that I have been working on for some weeks. I have crossed the Rubicon.
I have quoted Ben Franklin in a number of articles saying, “Truth will very patiently wait for us”. One of my fellow pest controllers took umbrage with that statement. Actually he took umbrage with me being the one saying it. Why? He stated that it wasn’t for me to point out what was truth since I have no qualifications and hadn’t done any research. He then went on to imply that truth was in the eye of the beholder. I have some questions.
This first appeared on June 18, 2006. This is a lead in article to two other hard hitting articles that I have been working on for some weeks. I have crossed the Rubicon.
I have quoted Ben Franklin in a number of articles saying, “Truth will very patiently wait for us”. One of my fellow pest controllers took umbrage with that statement. Actually he took umbrage with me being the one saying it. Why? He stated that it wasn’t for me to point out what was truth since I have no qualifications and hadn’t done any research. He then went on to imply that truth was in the eye of the beholder. I have some questions.
1. How qualified does someone have to be to point out “truth”?
2. How does one become qualified to be able to see that which is true?
3. What determines what the qualifications are?
4. Who determines who is qualified?
5. Are public officials automatically qualified?
6. If public officials are elected officials, are they now qualified by virtue of their election?
7. If public officials are found to be wrong are they now unqualified?
8. Are they unqualified forever?
9. Is honesty a quality necessary to point out the “truth”?
10. Is an alphabet soup of letters behind your name necessary to be able to point out “truths”?
11. Does education guarantee integrity, insight and understanding?
12. Is integrity more important than education or visa versa?
13. Is being over educated and under smart acceptable?
14. Has a researcher ever been found to be lying? If so, is he disqualified forever?
15. Is he only disqualified until the next government grant?
16. If a researcher lies should his alphabet soup of letters behind his name be removed?
17. If that happens is the one who was not formally educated now more qualified?
2. How does one become qualified to be able to see that which is true?
3. What determines what the qualifications are?
4. Who determines who is qualified?
5. Are public officials automatically qualified?
6. If public officials are elected officials, are they now qualified by virtue of their election?
7. If public officials are found to be wrong are they now unqualified?
8. Are they unqualified forever?
9. Is honesty a quality necessary to point out the “truth”?
10. Is an alphabet soup of letters behind your name necessary to be able to point out “truths”?
11. Does education guarantee integrity, insight and understanding?
12. Is integrity more important than education or visa versa?
13. Is being over educated and under smart acceptable?
14. Has a researcher ever been found to be lying? If so, is he disqualified forever?
15. Is he only disqualified until the next government grant?
16. If a researcher lies should his alphabet soup of letters behind his name be removed?
17. If that happens is the one who was not formally educated now more qualified?
Well then, let’s try this. One and one are two….right? See, there are absolute truths. Then again it didn’t take much brainpower to come to that conclusion. Perhaps it was far too bold for me to be the one point this out. This bodes well the question; is integrity and a legitimate concern for that which is right more important to brainpower than formal education?
The problem we have today is that we have the tendency to rely on “experts”entirely too much. Who says they are “the experts”? Scientists who are“experts” in their own field very often disagree. Vehemently! Global Warming is one such issue. We also have to tendency to run to the middle of the road. Well, let me say this about the middle of the road. That is where the dead animals are.
When Mann, Bradley and Hughes published their now infamous and discredited Hockey Stick graph to show global warming was an Earth threatening event that had to be addressed immediately; it was received by the greenies with utmost enthusiasm.
When McIntyre, a consultant for mineral exploration, and McKitrick published their independent study (they received no funding so as to avoid being criticized as lackeys of big business) the Greenies went almost apoplectic. So what was the solution? Mann and his cohorts merely needed to turn over all their research and show how they arrived at their numbers, which is typically done to allow for peer review. They refused; demanding that everyone had to just accept their conclusions and that there was “consensus” among all serious scientists regarding this matter and further review was unneeded.
Well, first off, that isn’t how peer review works. Secondly, part of the funding for their research came from the United States government which prompted a Senate committee chairman by the name of Inhofe to demand that they turn over their information or else. They and their allies went into even further stages of purple apoplexy. Once released it was obvious to the scientific community why they didn’t want to turn over the information. It exposed how they worked the numbers to get the answer they and their Greenie allies wanted. It was a case of a conclusion in search of data.
Now entering stage left, the High Priest of and First Televangelist for the“First Church of the Warming Globe”, Al Gore, with his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” with his pitch to send out 1000 apostles (Wow, Christ only needed 12) to spread the word to high schools and anywhere else uninformed, unformed minds could be molded.
Who amongst all of the above are qualified to expose the “truth”?
• The scientists who have been shown to have baked the data?
• The scientists who exposed them?
• The political leader who desperately wants the limelight and is inclined to accept any foolish Philosophical Flavor of the Day to get it?
• Or perhaps it is the honest "reader"!
• The scientists who exposed them?
• The political leader who desperately wants the limelight and is inclined to accept any foolish Philosophical Flavor of the Day to get it?
• Or perhaps it is the honest "reader"!
Is a dishonest scientist more qualified than an honest “reader”? Education is a wonderful thing. We need to be constantly educating ourselves by reading books, articles in newspapers, magazines and listening to discussions regarding a whole host of issues. In grade school, junior high school and high school we get the basic tools necessary for independent thought. This requires a certain amount of teaching of what to think versus how to think. Yet isn’t self-education the basic ingredient of formal education? Reading the information, discussing the information, and challenging each position by cross-referencing various writings. Finally writing about the information ourselves, since nothing sharpens the mind quite like having to place your thoughts down on paper.
Unfortunately higher education has lost sight of its role. Formal education at the higher levels continues to teach you what to think, not how to think. Unfortunately, so many come out of college as a herd of independent thinkers. Has it always been this way? I don’t know; although I do believe it depends on the school and the professors; and more schools and their professors are more and more radical. Woe be unto any student who stands against one of his professors pet theories. Worse yet; one who proves this pet theory has the smell of horse pucky attached to it.
It may take a little time, but eventually truth comes out. We need to stop being intimidated. We have the right and duty to challenge those in leadership positions in our industry irrespective of their credentials. We have the right and duty to challenge those who would destroy the pesticide manufacturing/distribution/application industries. This is our industry, not the experts. It is our families who will suffer the consequences for their being wrong. They will just move on to some other project. As Winston Chruchill pointedly stated, "experts should be on tap, not on top". If we have opinions that are contrary to what has become the conventional wisdom we need to speak up and not allow anyone to intimidate us into submission. We need to avoid the middle of the road and take a stand for what we believe is “truth”.
Albert Einstein once said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." While I don’t present myself as the absolute judge of truth and knowledge, I do however think I’m a pretty good judge of the smell of horse pucky.
Sunday,
July 26, 2009
Posted byRich Kozlovich
I asked John A. for his last name in order to properly credit this commentary, but he commented that he keeps his “surname off the Internet." He went on to say, “Just link to my blog, Things I Don’t Understand, and people will know who I am.”
John apparently is a history buff and categorizes himself as a “classical liberal”. Those among us who are history buffs will find that statement insightful. For those who aren’t, I have linked the history of “Classical Liberalism”. It isn’t what you think. I have also linked a number of names and events that may not be commonly known to most people in order to give everyone the true flavor of what John is saying. I would also like to thank him for allowing me to reprint what originally was an e-mail that appeared in the blog Greenie Watch. RK
The history of science is rife with examples of political, social and moral fashions which not simply influence, but pervert the scientific method and corrupt the conduct of scientists. Einstein faced off the political and moral fashions of Nazism and eugenics but plenty of his colleagues happily incorporated those twin systems into their own research. Eugenics also laid the foundations for the moral crusade against alcohol in early 20th Century America which was again a supposedly scientific assessment delivered as a moral panic which must be addressed immediately lest America fall into a deep pit of moral degeneration.
The example of Trofim Lysenko and the political outlawing of Mendelian genetics in Stalinist Russia is a particularly scary example of a political fashion given to be a moral and political imperative by a dangerously unstable man who became President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The parallels with the modern global warming scare are obvious.
Another example would be neo-Malthusianism as popularized in the 20th Century repeatedly by Paul Erlich first in the 1960s and more recently by the scarily named "Optimum Population Trust" (and here)which includes such luminaries as Sir David Attenborough calling for mandatory limits on family size to prevent near future overpopulation and mass starvation. Once again, a supposed scientific analysis is communicated as a moral imperative.
John Holdren,now President Obama's Climate Czar, co-wrote several books with Paul Erlich in the 1970s at least one of which argued for forced abortions, forced adoptions of illegitimate children or from mothers "who contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children" and the introduction of chemicals into water and food that rendered people sterile. All of this to forestall a crisis of overpopulation by the year 2000!
Carl Sagan, Erlich and others began and propagated the Nuclear Winter story of the 1980s, together with scary scenarios about likely darkening of the skies due to dust from burning cities rising into the stratosphere and blocking out the Sun. All with the aid of computer models with extremely rubbery parameters and dubious simplifications. A moral imperative against nuclear weapons? You betcha. Even Richard Feynman, iconoclast as he was, while averring that the underlying theory was nonsense, could not raise his voice too loud lest people think he was in favour of nuclear proliferation. Moral panics do that to the best of scientists.
There are lots more examples, but you get the idea. These scientific fashions all in their own time held great sway in academia and mainstream media. They divided scientists into those who were credible and those who were so morally and intellectually corrupt as to actually oppose these ideas.
Modern environmentalism has most, if not all of the above ideas incorporated into the unholy fusion of science and Marxist political theory now called "ecology", but is really a manifestation of what David Henderson memorably called "Global Salvationism".
The most interesting thing about all of this is that I, as a classical liberal, can find common cause with people from a wide spectrum of political and philosophical beliefs that the lessons of history are that moral fashions in science are endemic, cyclical and a constant menace to the real business of scientists to understand how the Universe works.
Scientists don't live in a fashion-free vacuum. They dress themselves in the fashions of the day, read the latest scare stories of the day, follow the latest celebrity soap operas of the day and most of all abide by rules to not upset the funding apple-cart from which their work is done, whatever their personal and moral qualms, at least until retirement.
I asked John A. for his last name in order to properly credit this commentary, but he commented that he keeps his “surname off the Internet." He went on to say, “Just link to my blog, Things I Don’t Understand, and people will know who I am.”
John apparently is a history buff and categorizes himself as a “classical liberal”. Those among us who are history buffs will find that statement insightful. For those who aren’t, I have linked the history of “Classical Liberalism”. It isn’t what you think. I have also linked a number of names and events that may not be commonly known to most people in order to give everyone the true flavor of what John is saying. I would also like to thank him for allowing me to reprint what originally was an e-mail that appeared in the blog Greenie Watch. RK
The history of science is rife with examples of political, social and moral fashions which not simply influence, but pervert the scientific method and corrupt the conduct of scientists. Einstein faced off the political and moral fashions of Nazism and eugenics but plenty of his colleagues happily incorporated those twin systems into their own research. Eugenics also laid the foundations for the moral crusade against alcohol in early 20th Century America which was again a supposedly scientific assessment delivered as a moral panic which must be addressed immediately lest America fall into a deep pit of moral degeneration.
The example of Trofim Lysenko and the political outlawing of Mendelian genetics in Stalinist Russia is a particularly scary example of a political fashion given to be a moral and political imperative by a dangerously unstable man who became President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The parallels with the modern global warming scare are obvious.
Another example would be neo-Malthusianism as popularized in the 20th Century repeatedly by Paul Erlich first in the 1960s and more recently by the scarily named "Optimum Population Trust" (and here)which includes such luminaries as Sir David Attenborough calling for mandatory limits on family size to prevent near future overpopulation and mass starvation. Once again, a supposed scientific analysis is communicated as a moral imperative.
John Holdren,now President Obama's Climate Czar, co-wrote several books with Paul Erlich in the 1970s at least one of which argued for forced abortions, forced adoptions of illegitimate children or from mothers "who contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children" and the introduction of chemicals into water and food that rendered people sterile. All of this to forestall a crisis of overpopulation by the year 2000!
Carl Sagan, Erlich and others began and propagated the Nuclear Winter story of the 1980s, together with scary scenarios about likely darkening of the skies due to dust from burning cities rising into the stratosphere and blocking out the Sun. All with the aid of computer models with extremely rubbery parameters and dubious simplifications. A moral imperative against nuclear weapons? You betcha. Even Richard Feynman, iconoclast as he was, while averring that the underlying theory was nonsense, could not raise his voice too loud lest people think he was in favour of nuclear proliferation. Moral panics do that to the best of scientists.
There are lots more examples, but you get the idea. These scientific fashions all in their own time held great sway in academia and mainstream media. They divided scientists into those who were credible and those who were so morally and intellectually corrupt as to actually oppose these ideas.
Modern environmentalism has most, if not all of the above ideas incorporated into the unholy fusion of science and Marxist political theory now called "ecology", but is really a manifestation of what David Henderson memorably called "Global Salvationism".
The most interesting thing about all of this is that I, as a classical liberal, can find common cause with people from a wide spectrum of political and philosophical beliefs that the lessons of history are that moral fashions in science are endemic, cyclical and a constant menace to the real business of scientists to understand how the Universe works.
Scientists don't live in a fashion-free vacuum. They dress themselves in the fashions of the day, read the latest scare stories of the day, follow the latest celebrity soap operas of the day and most of all abide by rules to not upset the funding apple-cart from which their work is done, whatever their personal and moral qualms, at least until retirement.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory – The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes.
Recently there was an IPM/bed bug study produced by Purdue University that took place in a bed bug project which was to determine which type of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) would be most efficacious and cost effective. In the abstract it outlines the program which was to last ten weeks in sixteen bed bug infested high rise low income apartments.
There was to be two treatment styles with apartments allotted for each style of“IPM” treatment. The first was designated as (D-IPM) with diatomaceous earth being the basis for treatment. The second was (S-IPM) with Phantom as the basis for control. Steam treatments and interceptors were also used. In the end the results were much the same. After bi-weekly inspections the costs were $463 and $482 per apartment respectively. There was also a fifty percent failure rate. That’s right! Fifty percent of the apartments were still infested after ten weeks of treatment.
A fifty percent failure rate; and they needed to fund a study to find this out? I would have been willing to tell them that at a fraction of the price. And just how long do we think that it will be before the apartments that were swept clean of bed bugs will be re-infested?
Was this study a failure or a success? If viewed in the traditional concept of failure and success, it would have to be a failure. In many ways it was a failure and in some ways it was a success because it highlights a number of things about IPM that have been a source of discussion between those who worship at the altar of IPM and those of us who believe that what they are promoting as IPM doesn’t exist in structural pest control, because so-called IPM is merely pest control with inadequate tools, which we will explore farther along.
First let’s look at whether this study was a failure or a success. Was it intended to be either? What was this study intended to do. Who benefited from this study? I intend to explore all of these issues.
Very often studies aren’t intended to be failures or successes as we may view things in those terms. They are very often merely designed to see what happens when (X) is done, in other words, “if we do this, what will be the results?”This seems to be the case.
I have had time to think about this and I have come to the conclusion that this study was a glorious success. I was a success because it highlights some important facts that we seem unwilling to face regarding IPM, especially involving bed bug control.
Heisenberg’s uncertainty Theory – The more closely you study the subject the less clearly defined it becomes.
Recently there was an IPM/bed bug study produced by Purdue University that took place in a bed bug project which was to determine which type of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) would be most efficacious and cost effective. In the abstract it outlines the program which was to last ten weeks in sixteen bed bug infested high rise low income apartments.
There was to be two treatment styles with apartments allotted for each style of“IPM” treatment. The first was designated as (D-IPM) with diatomaceous earth being the basis for treatment. The second was (S-IPM) with Phantom as the basis for control. Steam treatments and interceptors were also used. In the end the results were much the same. After bi-weekly inspections the costs were $463 and $482 per apartment respectively. There was also a fifty percent failure rate. That’s right! Fifty percent of the apartments were still infested after ten weeks of treatment.
A fifty percent failure rate; and they needed to fund a study to find this out? I would have been willing to tell them that at a fraction of the price. And just how long do we think that it will be before the apartments that were swept clean of bed bugs will be re-infested?
Was this study a failure or a success? If viewed in the traditional concept of failure and success, it would have to be a failure. In many ways it was a failure and in some ways it was a success because it highlights a number of things about IPM that have been a source of discussion between those who worship at the altar of IPM and those of us who believe that what they are promoting as IPM doesn’t exist in structural pest control, because so-called IPM is merely pest control with inadequate tools, which we will explore farther along.
First let’s look at whether this study was a failure or a success. Was it intended to be either? What was this study intended to do. Who benefited from this study? I intend to explore all of these issues.
Very often studies aren’t intended to be failures or successes as we may view things in those terms. They are very often merely designed to see what happens when (X) is done, in other words, “if we do this, what will be the results?”This seems to be the case.
I have had time to think about this and I have come to the conclusion that this study was a glorious success. I was a success because it highlights some important facts that we seem unwilling to face regarding IPM, especially involving bed bug control.
• This is a failure of price
• This is a failure of performance because of inadequate tools
• This is a failure of time
• This is failure of product
• This is a failure of definition
• This is a failure of public confidence
• This is a failure of good public health practices
• This is a success in that it points out what happens in the real world, with real people, living real lives.
• This is a success in pointing out that there is no such thing as an IPM methodology.
• This is a success in pointing out that the average person cannot afford Alphabet Soup IPM
• This is a success for grant chasers
• This is a failure of performance because of inadequate tools
• This is a failure of time
• This is failure of product
• This is a failure of definition
• This is a failure of public confidence
• This is a failure of good public health practices
• This is a success in that it points out what happens in the real world, with real people, living real lives.
• This is a success in pointing out that there is no such thing as an IPM methodology.
• This is a success in pointing out that the average person cannot afford Alphabet Soup IPM
• This is a success for grant chasers
This study was a glorious success because it highlights that fact that ultimately the customer, and society as a whole, is paying the price and will continue to pay the price for environmental regulations that were not based on science, but ideology.
IPM became the catch word to justify the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA, which along with re-registration, drove products off the market that worked. It is my view that justifying FQPA is what's behind this mad drive to impose IPM. If EPA wasn’t funding IPM it wouldn’t exist in structural pest control. The fact is that IPM only exists in structural pest control because the federal government says it exists.
They have been successful in removing products from the market that work. They must now be able to show that there is something to replace these products in order to further their goal to eventually eliminate all pesticides. IPM is their answer to pesticides; only it isn’t working.
We shouldn’t delude ourselves about this at all. Every pesticide category that has existed has come under attack in some manner or other from EPA and the greenies, and those products have been eliminated from the structural pest control arsenal. They may have some limited applications elsewhere, but for our purposes; that is immaterial. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are gone, organophosphates are mostly gone, Methyl carbamates are mostly gone and now pyrethroids are coming up for review with the goal of eliminating them also.
True, we now have neonicotinoids and pyrroles such as Phantom, but they apparently not the answer either. And Termidor isn’t labeled for inside use, nor I am aware of any bed bug study involving Termidor. One more point. There has been no pesticide used in structural pest control that has been “banned”since DDT. The EPA has used all sorts of schemes to attain their goals, but outright banning hasn’t been one of them since DDT.
Everyone would like to avoid the fact that this just isn’t just a public health issue, it is an ideological battle; THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE! Bedbugs are merely a symptom to the affliction of ideology versus reality; of green mythology versus truth. We must come face to face with these questions;
• Does IPM really exist in structural pest control?
• What is more important; making IPM sacrosanct or eliminating bed bugs?
• If bed bugs transmitted the plague as fleas do, would we be having this discussion?
No matter what EPA claims; unless you are talking about IPM in agriculture, where it originated and has clear parameters, IPM is an ideology; it is not a methodology. IPM was an economic program outlined in 1959 in an obscure agricultural magazine, Hilgardia.
A certain amount of pests cause a certain amount of damage and certain amount of pesticide costs certain about of money. When the threshold limit of pests causes more damage than the cost of pesticides then a pesticide application was made. That is pretty straight forward. Now THAT is IPM!
How can anyone translate that into structural pest control? The very idea that IPM is something separate or better than what is called traditional pest control is inherently flawed thinking. There is no threshold limit of pests in homes and businesses. I have been told the IPM is a successful methodology. Really? Apparently these researchers at Purdue aren’t’ aware of this “methodology”since they now have an alphabet soup of IPM “methodologies”. S-IPM and D-IPM, and (S-IPM) standing for Phantom IPM, pun intended. Well then, how about (SDU-IPM) for Dursban-IPM, or (SF-IPM) for Ficam-IPM, or (SDI-IPM) Diazinon-IPM. It is clear that the IPM can be defined and redefined unendingly. Why? Because IPM is an ideology; it is not now nor will it ever be a methodology!
Before we further explore what IPM is or isn’t, we need to define what pest control is. Pest control isn’t a methodology either; it is a practice, much like medicine. Don’t get your shorts all bunched up in a knot. Pest control is a practice exactly like medicine.
In medicine the doctor (practitioner) examines the patient. In pest control the technician (practitioner) inspects the property. In medicine the practitioner makes a diagnosis. In pest control the practitioner identifies the pest. In medicine the practitioner determines the treatment the will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In pest control the practitioner determines the treatment that will give the quickest most efficacious relief possible. In medicine the practitioner outlines a program of preventative health care. In pest control the practitioner outlines a program of preventative applications.
Here is the rub. Does the doctor go through a list of techniques or products before he prescribes the one that will work the best? NO! Does the doctor start his treatment process by “bleeding” his patients first before moving on to more effective methods? NO! Yet those promoting IPM continue to demand that a whole host of hoops be jumped through before a pesticide application is made, insisting that pesticides are to be used only as a last resort. Even the EPA doesn't officially define IPM in that fashion. Are we to first resort to old techniques that became passe when pesticides were developed? If those techniques were so great; why did they abandon them for modern pest control?
Why should an experienced practitioner have to follow a circuitous plan from people who will do anything or say anything to eliminate pesticides? People who aren’t practitioners of pest control and aren’t responsible for the outcome? Do we really believe that the activists and their acolytes in government know how to treat a structure better than those in pest control? Do we really believe that all the theoretical health claims made by these people are true? Do we believe that everything we have been doing for over sixty years has been wrong?
IPM is pest control and there is no need to call it anything other than pest control; unless however there is some insidious goal behind this mad drive to impose it on the world. The very idea that IPM is different, better, safer and something entirely separate other than what is called traditional pest control is inherently flawed. Not only was there no definitive “methodology” in these so-called IPM treatments, the ones used in this study failed to produce effective results. The study may have provided the information they were looking for, but I could have told them this without wasting a lot of grant money.
I recently sent out a article that appeared on Monday, July 27, 2009 entitled, “Co-op hair-raiser: $250,000 bed bug bill”, that discussed the “total cost to make the three-tower, 217-unit Theater District co-op a bloodsucker-free zone: $250,000.” The article went on to say, “in addition, everything in the basement storage lockers was packed in impermeable containers and shipped to an off-site exterminator, while the storage rooms were treated. From now on, residents must put all their stored belongings in plastic bins with air-tight gaskets, or double wrap them in airtight plastics. The bug-sniffing beagle visits every week for now, and will eventually return three times a year. (This must be (DOG-IPM) for dog Integrated Pest Management. RK) The $250,000 bloodletting was paid from the building's reserve funds. A board member said it was a bargain compared to the cost of a bigger infestation. Scary. Is anyone is selling bed bug insurance policies yet?”
And this was a bargain? Do we really believe that this kind of service is available to the average person? Do we really believe that this is the answer to the EPA created plague? Do we really believe that people are going to stand for this while self-righteous activists inside and outside of the industry pontificate about the glories of IPM?
Since EPA created this perfect storm, I would like someone to once again explain to me why blaming EPA isn't the answer; especially since at the regulatory level they are the only ones capable of ending this problem. I would like for someone to also explain to me why anyone clings to the idea that chemistry isn't the answer. I would like someone to explain to me why chemistry was the answer 1946 but it isn’t now. I would like someone to explain to me why these so-called IPM programs that require unique technology, unending recalls, excessive amounts of money (that most people will be incapable of paying) and eventually repeated pesticide treatments with products that are inadequate is better for the public than what it replaced. I would like someone to explain to me why Dursban, Ficam and a host of other products that EPA forced off the market was so much worse for the public.
Chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will again be the answer in 2010!
So we come to this question; why do those in research defend and promote this noxious policy so fiercely? Because there is a lot of money involved! Things like the Butterfield Bill are a classic example of what I am talking about. Fifty million a year and bed bugs will be no closer to being eliminated than before. However there will be loads of money for grant chasers. As for government support of this; along with the fact that many government agencies are infested with anti-pesticide activists, bureaucracies live to grow and IPM, the Butterfield Bill, the EPA Bed Bug Summits aid in unending growth.
Do these researchers really believe that IPM is the answer? Do they really believe that the products we lost caused all the terrible health problems that the EPA and the greenies claim? If they do; then they need to say so. If they don’t; then they need to say so. One of these researchers actually said that they ought to build a statue to Rachel Carson because of all the research money that came their way to “study” pesticides as a result of her book and the movement it stirred. What is it all about; grant money or truth? Where are our priorities?
But what about the public? Who will speak for them? Who will answer to them?
There are two great books out there that you may find interesting. The first one is by the American Council on Science and Health, called “Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals? Scientific and Regulatory Issues in Perspective, and Bjorn Lomborg’s, “Skeptical Environmentalist”. Lomborg’s book is very long, deals with all environmental issues, and is highly technical; but anyone who reads it will become very authoritative on green subjects, and many of the actors.
Monday, August 3, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
An article by Thomas L. Friedman called the Age of Interruption elicited some comments from his readers, including this letter from someone who claims to be Cynthia Emerlye of South Pomfret, Vt. and appeared in the New York Times on July 5, 2006 where-in she waxed eloquent about the need to embrace nature.
An article by Thomas L. Friedman called the Age of Interruption elicited some comments from his readers, including this letter from someone who claims to be Cynthia Emerlye of South Pomfret, Vt. and appeared in the New York Times on July 5, 2006 where-in she waxed eloquent about the need to embrace nature.
(Editor’s note: I don’t believe that Cynthia Emerlye of South
Pomfret, Vt. is a person. This is the name of a company in that town and it was
probably written by some employee who wished to remain anonymous. RK)
People keep yammering about the need to “return to nature” in
order to restore their humanity and save the planet. Return to organic farming
and eliminate pesticides and chemical fertilizers. No genetically modified
foods, no roads, no cars, no electricity, no modern central heating or cooling
in the home.
Having grown up on a farm in an area that had a substantial number of wells, springs and cisterns as water sources, along with outside toilets for personal use, I am somewhat familiar with the concept.
I remember well and with great nostalgia those starlit nights when I would lay on my back and see the great expanse of the Milky Way. In the country it is far more expansive than you could ever see in the city, or for that matter, even imagine in the city. You felt as if you were looking past eternity. You would be surprised at how many shooting stars appear on a clear night.
The problem with that is this…..Life isn’t lived that way. Those grand nights weren’t every night, and during the day those sights can’t be seen at all - and the memory of them doesn’t ease the burdens of everyday living. Just because these moments are prized and cherished by those of us who were able to enjoy them doesn’t alter the fact that the rest of the time was substantially more difficult. In other words; the farm is nice place to get away and visit, but I don’t want to live there anymore.
It is interesting that the people who lived that way didn’t quite see life the way these romantic greenies present it.
Having grown up on a farm in an area that had a substantial number of wells, springs and cisterns as water sources, along with outside toilets for personal use, I am somewhat familiar with the concept.
I remember well and with great nostalgia those starlit nights when I would lay on my back and see the great expanse of the Milky Way. In the country it is far more expansive than you could ever see in the city, or for that matter, even imagine in the city. You felt as if you were looking past eternity. You would be surprised at how many shooting stars appear on a clear night.
The problem with that is this…..Life isn’t lived that way. Those grand nights weren’t every night, and during the day those sights can’t be seen at all - and the memory of them doesn’t ease the burdens of everyday living. Just because these moments are prized and cherished by those of us who were able to enjoy them doesn’t alter the fact that the rest of the time was substantially more difficult. In other words; the farm is nice place to get away and visit, but I don’t want to live there anymore.
It is interesting that the people who lived that way didn’t quite see life the way these romantic greenies present it.
• When electricity was introduced into rural areas, very few
said…"no, none of that throwing the switch stuff just to get light for
me."
• When running water was introduced into these areas, very few said…."no, I would rather haul gallons and gallons of water up from the spring."
• When running water was introduced into these areas, very few said…."no, I would rather haul gallons and gallons of water up from the spring."
I had
uncles and an aunt that did that. I want to see these romantic greenies do that
on the first wash day. Does it ever occur to anyone to ask: If primitive was so
good in the past; why did they ever abandon it in the past? If primitive is so
great today….why do those who have the opportunity abandon primitive today
abandon it so readily? I read about celebrities who rave about an outdoor
experience as if they have had an epiphany….and then they go home. If it was so
great….why didn’t they stay….forever? Apparently Friedman really
"loved" it for four days. I would have liked to have interviewed his
guide, who knew every "chirp" in the jungle, and see if he would
rather live with his family in modern America or primitive areas of South
America.
Clearly, this is what some really desire and they would find contentment with this lifestyle, and those who wish to abandon modern life and revert back to nature have my blessing. As for everyone else, I think this is something most people would really hate. Worse yet; I think few would survive.
This quote appeared in the Blog Café Hayek regarding this letter. “Consider, for example, Thomas Babington Macaulay's description of life in the 17th-century Scottish highlands -- before anything beyond rudimentary commerce and industry reach there:”
Clearly, this is what some really desire and they would find contentment with this lifestyle, and those who wish to abandon modern life and revert back to nature have my blessing. As for everyone else, I think this is something most people would really hate. Worse yet; I think few would survive.
This quote appeared in the Blog Café Hayek regarding this letter. “Consider, for example, Thomas Babington Macaulay's description of life in the 17th-century Scottish highlands -- before anything beyond rudimentary commerce and industry reach there:”
“His lodging would sometimes have been in a hut of which every
nook would have swarmed with vermin. He would have inhaled an atmosphere thick
with peat smoke, and foul with a hundred noisome exhalations. At supper grain
fit only for horses would have been set before him, accompanied by a cake of
blood drawn from living cows. Some of the company with which he would have
feasted would have been covered with cutaneous eruptions, and others would have
been smeared with tar like sheep. His couch would have been the bare earth, dry
or wet as the weather might be; and from that couch he would have risen half
poisoned with stench, half blind with the reek of turf, and half mad with the
itch.”
I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t sound like a good time to me. The movies don’t really depict the true nature of life in ancient times. It was brutal, ugly, backbreaking, uncomfortable, unhealthy, and most importantly; very short lived. This is the embrace of nature.
We may wish to embrace nature in a loving way, and I think this is a good overall attitude, but let’s not lose sight of reality. Nature has no loving embrace for us in return. Nature is unthinking, brutal, unkind, uncaring, unhealthy and will make life short lived for those who aren’t prepared to change their environment in order to survive.
Nature will shine on us one day and rain on us the next. It doesn’t care, nor is nature able to care. Nature is an environmental machine that operates under a set of laws, and those laws have no human concepts of reality or compassion. Let’s stop being anthropomorphic about nature. Nature has no human qualities, period.
How many of us really want to go back to those eras? If we did, how may would survive the first year? How many really know how to produce the food they would need to survive? If you were able to produce enough food to survive, how do you preserve meats, fruits and vegetables without refrigeration or canning processes? If you did grow enough grain to get through the winter how would you process it and store it?
It was done in the old days. Do you know how? How many really do? To some extant I do, but none of that has any appeal for me at all. I have no desire to embrace primitivism, and I don’t seem to see the greenies embracing it as a permanent life style either. They pontificate about the glories of primitive living from the comforts and well laid tables of the modern world.
The environment has to be properly cared for, but all things in nature must be used as a means of survival. I am not talking about abusing nature. Having grown up on a small farm I know and understand the concepts of conservation (there is a difference between conservation and preservation) for future utilization. It is just like a bank account, if you deplete it there is nothing left. Nature does not think and does not care. Nature has no feelings, no concerns and no desires. Nature is here for our use and our benefit, not the other way around. We are not imposing on nature. Nature belongs to us.
I don’t really believe that this lady really intends for her comments to be taken to the above stated extremes, but these odes to nature have an impact on people’s emotions. Clear analytical thought becomes very difficult when living in an imaginary world of serendipity. In the Persian fairy tale, The Three Princes of Serendip, wonderful, valuable and agreeable things not sought for suddenly would appear. To embrace nature for its beauty and grandeur is fortifying to the spirit, but to embrace in order to humanize it as if nature was warm, wonderful and serendipitous; is to place it above mankind. That is eco-religion. That is eco-terrorism! It isn’t very bright either!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
by Rich
Kozlovich
I know I said that I was going to do this weekly, but there is just too much information and too much to do, so I archived all the Morning Dispatches and then organized them by category. Since they are organized in this manner I can take one or two issues and highlight them. Unfortunately I have come to realize that I just can’t do it every week. There is just so much great information. I think this stuff is so great I hate “rationing” it, but I don’t see any other way. Having a real job can put a real crimp in real time allocations.
There is one way to get a daily dose of ASCH and that is through their Morning Dispatch. I wish to open this edition of the ACSH Report by quoting Dr. Elizabeth Whelan regarding their fund drive.
I know I said that I was going to do this weekly, but there is just too much information and too much to do, so I archived all the Morning Dispatches and then organized them by category. Since they are organized in this manner I can take one or two issues and highlight them. Unfortunately I have come to realize that I just can’t do it every week. There is just so much great information. I think this stuff is so great I hate “rationing” it, but I don’t see any other way. Having a real job can put a real crimp in real time allocations.
There is one way to get a daily dose of ASCH and that is through their Morning Dispatch. I wish to open this edition of the ACSH Report by quoting Dr. Elizabeth Whelan regarding their fund drive.
“Our message is really striking a nerve,” says ACSH president
and founder Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. Dr. Whelan would like to thank the many
Morning Dispatch readers who promptly and generously responded to the challenge
put forth by an ACSH donor.“Raise $25,000 online this month, and I'll match it
dollar for dollar,” the donor told us, “so you can stand up for what we believe
in.” If you have not yet participated, please don't wait another day. Your
donation today will have double the impact. Click here to donate safely and
securely online -- or you can call ACSH, a non-profit dedicated to debunking
unscientific claims, toll-free at 1-800-905-2694.
I can
only encourage everyone to donate to this fine organization. Good science isn’t
easy to come by. Those who are willing and able to take on the junk scientists
are even harder to find.
Rhetoric versus Reality - Life Expectancy
A recently released government report concludes that the average life expectancy in the U.S. has reached an all-time high at seventy-eight.
Rhetoric versus Reality - Life Expectancy
A recently released government report concludes that the average life expectancy in the U.S. has reached an all-time high at seventy-eight.
“This certainly flies in the face of all the health scares,”says
Dr. Whelan, who once wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled“Living
Longer and Feeling Worse About it.” One of ACSH’s friends reacted sardonically
to the news: “Gosh, what terrible news for the eco-wackos...How can this be
happening with all the ‘chemicals’ in the environment?” The good news was
conspicuously absent from the New York Times. Gray Lady indeed"
All That Is Natural
A large study sanctioned by the UK’s Food Standards Agency and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutritionconcluded that there is no significant nutritional difference between “organic”and conventionally produced food. The research replicates the results of an earlier study by ACSH advisor and Emeritus Professor of Food Toxicology at Rutgers University Dr. Joseph Rosen, who exposed the fallacies of the organic movement’s claim that organic food is more nutritious over a year ago.
“While it’s a meta-analysis and it only looked at nutrition as
opposed to the presence of pesticides, it still provides evidence that organic
food isn’t any better for you,” says ACSH’s Jeff Stier. “It’s like playing a
game of whack-a-mole. It was already proven that people aren’t getting sick
from pesticides on food, so the organic crowd claimed their food was more
nutritious. Now that that has been disproved, they’re going back to the
pesticides thing.”One such organic proponent is Dr. Marion Nestle of New
York University, who says, “Organics aren't about nutrients. They are about
cleaner and more sustainable production methods,” including “lower levels of
pesticides and herbicides, which seems like a good idea.”
“We have no qualms with organic lobbyists who claim there’s more pesticides on foods that aren’t labeled as organic, but our response is: so what?” says Dr. Ross. “There are studies showing that those chemicals are safe at current levels of exposure. However, there are no studies that show a significant advantage associated with eating organic food.”
“We have no qualms with organic lobbyists who claim there’s more pesticides on foods that aren’t labeled as organic, but our response is: so what?” says Dr. Ross. “There are studies showing that those chemicals are safe at current levels of exposure. However, there are no studies that show a significant advantage associated with eating organic food.”
ACSH
staffers are grateful to Dominic Lawson, whose article on the UK’s TimesOnline
offers support for his belief that “Organic
food is just a tax on the gullible.” Lawson chronicles
organic proponents’ recent shift to abusive personal attacks against scientists
in light of the UK’s FSA report proving that organic food isn’t any more
nutritious than conventionally produced food.
He quotes Dr. Ben Goldacre of the NHS, author of the acclaimed book Bad Science, who says, “In my experience the [comments of the] organic food, anti-vaccine, and homeopathy movements are unusually hateful and generally revolve around bizarre allegations that you covertly represent some financial or corporate interest. I do not, but I do think it reveals something about their own motives that they can only conceive of a person holding a position as a result of financial self-interest.”
He’s not the only one who has observed the deceitful trend. “Dr. Joseph Rosen noticed recent studies once more discrediting the claim that organic food is nutritionally superior,” says Seavey. “He’ll be writing a series of articles on the topic for our HealthFactsAndFears blog in the next few weeks.”
The article concludes by reiterating ACSH’s oft-repeated organic disclaimer:“This just demonstrates the common-sense point that diet, rather than whether food is produced‘organically’ or not, is the key to healthy eating.”
A New York Times blog reviews a farmer’s riposte to a prominent critic of modern agribusiness and its methods:“[Blake] Hurst argues that the ‘reality is messier’ than idealistic, non-farming critics would have it. Much of his argument comes down to: beware the law of unintended agricultural consequences.”
He quotes Dr. Ben Goldacre of the NHS, author of the acclaimed book Bad Science, who says, “In my experience the [comments of the] organic food, anti-vaccine, and homeopathy movements are unusually hateful and generally revolve around bizarre allegations that you covertly represent some financial or corporate interest. I do not, but I do think it reveals something about their own motives that they can only conceive of a person holding a position as a result of financial self-interest.”
He’s not the only one who has observed the deceitful trend. “Dr. Joseph Rosen noticed recent studies once more discrediting the claim that organic food is nutritionally superior,” says Seavey. “He’ll be writing a series of articles on the topic for our HealthFactsAndFears blog in the next few weeks.”
The article concludes by reiterating ACSH’s oft-repeated organic disclaimer:“This just demonstrates the common-sense point that diet, rather than whether food is produced‘organically’ or not, is the key to healthy eating.”
A New York Times blog reviews a farmer’s riposte to a prominent critic of modern agribusiness and its methods:“[Blake] Hurst argues that the ‘reality is messier’ than idealistic, non-farming critics would have it. Much of his argument comes down to: beware the law of unintended agricultural consequences.”
“Organic agriculture is built on the fraudulent claim that
chemicals are dangerous,” says ACSH’s Todd Seavey. “So-called sustainable
agriculture, more often than not, is actually a conglomeration of primitive
methods that sustained us on the brink of starvation -- without using resources
efficiently at all -- for millennia. These techniques, like a lot of other
unscientific, anti-industrial trends in society, are a virtual war on modern
civilization.”
And of course we can’t leave without mentioning the logical
conclusion of “organic” living and that is Holistic Medicine.
ACSH staffers were not surprised to see today’s New York Times mention Don Imus’ decision to forego traditional treatment for his stage two prostate cancer:
ACSH staffers were not surprised to see today’s New York Times mention Don Imus’ decision to forego traditional treatment for his stage two prostate cancer:
“Though he was initially advised to begin radiation treatments,
he has so far chosen to treat the disease holistically. He has been dutifully
ingesting habanero peppers and Japanese soy supplements as part of a regimen
partly devised by his wife, a natural foods proponent.”
I am
not opposed to people trying anything that they wish to use in order to
maintain their lives, after all, the pillars of medicine have been seriously
wrong before. What I am really in favor of is anything that works. In words of
this loose quote of the fictional character Dr. Noah Praetorius, “I am in favor
of using anything that makes sick people well.”
As Dr. Ross points out, he probably isn't harming himself as “Watchful waiting without invasive treatment is often a valid approach for early-stage prostate cancer." But what about his listeners? That is the scary part; what happens to them if they follow his lead? Is Imus and his wife dulusional? I don't know, and for the most part I doubt if we will ever know for sure since most men die before prostate cancer can kill them. That's kind of a sick thought isn't it? It is true though.
As Dr. Ross points out, he probably isn't harming himself as “Watchful waiting without invasive treatment is often a valid approach for early-stage prostate cancer." But what about his listeners? That is the scary part; what happens to them if they follow his lead? Is Imus and his wife dulusional? I don't know, and for the most part I doubt if we will ever know for sure since most men die before prostate cancer can kill them. That's kind of a sick thought isn't it? It is true though.
Monday, August 31, 2009
by Rich
Kozlovich
Originally I intended this as a part of my five part “common sense” series. However, after reading some of the details of the NPMA/NRDC agreement in Pest Control Technology magazine, and talking to Bob Rosenberg, I believe that things have gotten so bad I intend to do a separate series on the National Pest Management Association (NPMA).
They have shown a pattern of activity that has led to what I believe is a serious betrayal of the pest control industry by our “elected” representatives at NPMA. Part I is meant as in instructional piece, Part II will challenge the philosophy behind this action, and Part III will challenge the people behind this philosophy.
The Leadership of the National Pest Management Pest Control Association has now created a partnership with one of the most radical environmental groups in this nation and we are supposed to believe that this is, as Rob Lederer says, good for the industry. And what is the “good” role that the National Resource Defense Council going to play in directing the future of the structural pest control industry? They will “help” us decide what will constitute “green” pest control. There will be more about this in Part II.
I am willing to bet that if the elected NPMA leadership asked the general membership what they thought of this beforehand they would have gotten an earful that would have pierced their ear drums.
So that there is no mistake about who this Trojan horse is, I have linked and quoted information directly from the Activist Cash web site. I am a firm believer in the old axiom that birds of a feather flock together.
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the utility infielder of nanny groups. Because its name implies a wide-ranging universe of issues, the group can be counted on to inject itself into just about any debate where there’s an environmental argument to be made. Washington PR firm Fenton Communications has made use of the NRDC in a variety of public campaigns, the most famous example of which was the 1989 “Alar-on-apples” food scare.
Following the release of a report called “Intolerable Risk” — which claimed that Alar was “the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply” and blamed the chemical for “as many as 5,300” childhood cancer cases — Fenton and NRDC went on a five-month media blitz. The campaign kicked off with a CBS 60 Minutes feature seen by over 50 million Americans. Despite the fact that the claims were completely unfounded, hysteria set in. Apples were pulled off of grocery shelves, schools stopped serving them at lunch, and apple growers nationwide lost over $250 million.
Currently, NRDC is focusing a great deal of its vast resources fighting against genetically improved foods.
The Wall Street Journal printed one of David Fenton’s internal memos, after the Alar-on-apples scandal was publicly debunked. Here’s Fenton in his own words:“We designed [the Alar Campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold this book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it.”
NRDC joined forces again with Fenton Communications in 1998 to promote a food-scare campaign called “Give Swordfish a Break!” which was operated by SeaWeb, an organization created by Fenton specifically for this campaign. Nearly all of the funding for this effort came from pass-through grants solicited by NRDC on behalf of SeaWeb. Two years later the anti-swordfish campaign folded, with both groups claiming victory. The whole promotion was based on the myth that Atlantic swordfish were being over-fished to the point of extinction. But according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, that simply wasn’t true.
American Corn Growers Association
At a March 21, 2000, press conference, the organic marketer-funded Center for Food Safety unveiled a petition demanding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begin requiring warning labels on all genetically improved foods. Among the co-signers of this document were the American Corn Growers Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
With its all-American name, the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) brings to mind visions of Heartland cornfields and a simple farm life straight out of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic.” But in reality, ACGA represents a farming style more Cuban than American.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
“The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.” CSPI was founded in 1971 by current executive director Michael Jacobson, and two of his co-workers at Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law. Since then, CSPI’s joyless eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile—and highly questionable—reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes good.”
Earth First!
In 1997-98, the Trees Foundation, which serves as the fiscal agent for various Earth First! groups, reported to the IRS that it received funding from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Trees noted that the NRDC money was“specifically designated for” three California groups “for their work in the Headwaters Forest protection effort.” One of these groups was the Ecology Center, where Karen Pickett runs the Headwaters campaign. Pickett is also the keeper of the cash for the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
Another group that NRDC “specifically designated” should get pass-through money from the Trees Foundation was Redwood Justice. Redwood Justice’s main program is paying the legal bills for Earth First! leader Darryl Cherney’s lawsuit against the FBI.
A spin off this group is the super radical Earth Liberation Front (ELF). “Three workers sleeping at a construction site were able to escape after the terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) set fire to an unfinished, 200-unit condominium development late one night in August, 2003. "It could have killed someone," said San Diego fire captain Jeff Carle.”
Environmental Media Services
SeaWeb’s wholly unnecessary “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign, conceived and directed by Fenton Communications, was originally designed as a cooperative campaign with the Natural Resources Defense Council (SeaWeb and NRDC are still Fenton clients). In its typical role as media “front” group, Environmental Media Services heavily promoted the swordfish boycott on behalf of both NRDC and SeaWeb for two years, ending with a hollow declaration of victory in August 2000.
Environmental Working Group
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Working Group are both clients of leftist PR firm Fenton Communications, based in Washington, DC. David Fenton, who runs this firm, also sits on EWG’s board.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency includes a remarkable number of anti-consumer activists on various advisory committees. When invitations to join the current EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee were issued in August 2001, the Environmental Working Group’s Sean Gray made the list, as did Erik Olson of NRDC, John Vickery of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Troy Seidle of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
NRDC and EWG have been tag-teaming both EPA panels and the public for several years. In one celebrated episode, both groups’ representatives pulled out of Vice President Gore’s “Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee” in 1999, claiming that even Al “Earth in the Balance” Gore wasn’t banning pesticides fast enough for their liking. The two organizations co-released a (later debunked) report in 1996 claiming that 45 million Americans were drinking “contaminated” water. Not surprisingly, EWG pointed the finger of blame at “pesticide runoff.”
Greenpeace
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace USA are both clients of leftist Washington PR boutique Fenton Communications. David Fenton’s flacks have perfected the art of the food scare, including NRDC’s Alar-on-apples fundraising scam in 1989, SeaWeb’s ridiculous 1988 swordfish boycott, and the more recent StarLink corn fiasco.
Greenpeace is the largest environmental organization in the world, with an international membership of over 5 million and offices in over 20 countries. Forbes magazine once described it as “a skillfully managed business” with full command of “the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.” But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its“non-profit” status and its U.S. tax exemption.
Humane Society of the United States
When the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the United States Navy because it believed “human-generated noise -- including active sonars – ha[d] a negative effect on marine mammals,” the Humane Society of the United States was happy to sign on. The two groups have also sued Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport, O’Hare Airport, and others. The Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) coalition counts both HSUS and NRDC as members. KAW aims to scare the public about the supposed “overuse” of antibiotics on farm animals. They were also both members of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Foodspeak coalition. Members hoped to avoid lawsuits for false claims against food companies by overturning food disparagement laws.
Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
Ruckus Society
While the Ruckus Society’s Tzeporah Berman (who coordinates rainforest programs for ForestEthics in Vancouver) oversaw a Canadian anti-logging campaign on the ground, NRDC put economic pressure on companies like Home Depot, Lowe’s, Kinko’s, Nike, 3M, and Starbucks, each of which pledged to avoid buying products derived from British Columbia rainforest timber.
The Ruckus Society was founded in late 1995 by two giants of the radical environmentalist movement: Mike Roselle and Howard “Twilly” Cannon. Roselle was a founder of Earth First! (of 1980s tree-spiking fame), the group which spun off the domestic terrorist Earth Liberation Front in 1992. He also co-founded the radical Rainforest Action Network. Cannon built his extremist credentials as a front-line activist and ship’s captain with Greenpeace’s French and Russian anti-nuclear campaigns.
SeaWeb
SeaWeb began as a “project” of the NRDC, with a start-up grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Now that SeaWeb has been spun off and enjoys relative independence, its leaders still collaborate with NRDC program directors on a variety of promotions, including the wholly unnecessary (and thoroughly debunked) “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign. NRDC’s opinions on which species of menu fish are politically correct enough to eat can be found on SeaWeb’s“Seafood Choices Alliance” web site. Greenpeace USA and SeaWeb are both clients of leftist Washington PR boutique Fenton Communications, the widely-acknowledged kings of the modern food scare.
What can you say about a group of alarmist publicity-seekers whose greatest passion is “saving” fish species that aren’t even endangered? Are they crazy? Power-hungry? Misguided, as the U.S. government has said? Sadly, SeaWeb is just one in a long line of recent entrants into the food-scare industry. And judging from the the company it keeps, SeaWeb is a prime example of the well-networked Nanny Culture. Its pockets are deep, its friends are powerful, its tactics are disingenuous, and it’s not going away any time soon.
Sierra Club
The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have allied on numerous occasions to combat modern livestock farms, most notably joining with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Waterkeeper Alliance in 2003 to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for increased restrictions on pork farmers. The Sierra Club also promoted NRDC's notorious Alar on apples" food scare. The two groups have collaborated multiple times to lobby the U.S. government against biotech foods, and are members of the Keep Antibiotics Working campaign, a slick PR project that frightens Americans away from the conventional meat supply with reckless claims about the use of antibiotics in livestock.
Founded in 1892 by John Muir to "make the mountains glad," the Sierra Club is the oldest and arguably the most powerful environmental group in the nation. But its concerns are no longer limited to the happiness of the valleys. Once dedicated to conserving wilderness for future human enjoyment, the Sierra Club has become an anti-growth, anti-technology group that puts its utopian environmentalist vision before the well being of humans.
Tides Foundation
NRDC predates the Tides Center by several years, so it was never formally a Tides “project.” But it did enjoy similar “startup” assistance from the Tides Foundation during its early years. To date, Tides has used its “pass-through”granting structure to funnel over a quarter of a million dollars to NRDC, without ever acknowledging where the funds originally came from. In one example, the Tides Foundation was the funding vehicle through which NRDC received funds in 1989 to hire Fenton Communications, its PR firm of choice, to promote its much-hyped and thoroughly debunked Alar-on-apples food scare.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) calls one of its flagship programs the “Safe Food Fight.” And with WORC, the emphasis is always on fighting. After all, over 80% of WORC’s funding comes from big-money foundations, and they’re not paying WORC to be calm and rational.
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists often brags about its cooperation with other environmental groups. Among the organizations with which UCS works closely, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stands at the top of the list. UCS and NRDC regularly co-host press conferences, co-sign petitions, and co-author reports. Both groups are members of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition and the Save our Environment Coalition.
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.
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Natural Resources Defense Council has collaborated with the Western Organization of Resource Councils in the past, most notably on matters of mining policy. During the years of the Clinton administration, NRDC and WORC co-signed at least three letters to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, urging that stricter standards be used for determining mining rights for coal in Western states. In one case, the two groups joined with Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to sue the Bureau of Land Management over the terms of its coal mining-rights leasing program.
These groups have promoted every misanthropic philosophical flavor of the day that has come down the pike for the last fifty years and if we are to believe all that is said, and I for one do, they have done it with lies, deception and junk science. We aren’t just partnering up with the NRDC; we are now in bed with every radical group in the world and they will have a say in everything that we do from now on!
And Rob Lederer thinks that this is a good thing!
Originally I intended this as a part of my five part “common sense” series. However, after reading some of the details of the NPMA/NRDC agreement in Pest Control Technology magazine, and talking to Bob Rosenberg, I believe that things have gotten so bad I intend to do a separate series on the National Pest Management Association (NPMA).
They have shown a pattern of activity that has led to what I believe is a serious betrayal of the pest control industry by our “elected” representatives at NPMA. Part I is meant as in instructional piece, Part II will challenge the philosophy behind this action, and Part III will challenge the people behind this philosophy.
The Leadership of the National Pest Management Pest Control Association has now created a partnership with one of the most radical environmental groups in this nation and we are supposed to believe that this is, as Rob Lederer says, good for the industry. And what is the “good” role that the National Resource Defense Council going to play in directing the future of the structural pest control industry? They will “help” us decide what will constitute “green” pest control. There will be more about this in Part II.
I am willing to bet that if the elected NPMA leadership asked the general membership what they thought of this beforehand they would have gotten an earful that would have pierced their ear drums.
So that there is no mistake about who this Trojan horse is, I have linked and quoted information directly from the Activist Cash web site. I am a firm believer in the old axiom that birds of a feather flock together.
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the utility infielder of nanny groups. Because its name implies a wide-ranging universe of issues, the group can be counted on to inject itself into just about any debate where there’s an environmental argument to be made. Washington PR firm Fenton Communications has made use of the NRDC in a variety of public campaigns, the most famous example of which was the 1989 “Alar-on-apples” food scare.
Following the release of a report called “Intolerable Risk” — which claimed that Alar was “the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply” and blamed the chemical for “as many as 5,300” childhood cancer cases — Fenton and NRDC went on a five-month media blitz. The campaign kicked off with a CBS 60 Minutes feature seen by over 50 million Americans. Despite the fact that the claims were completely unfounded, hysteria set in. Apples were pulled off of grocery shelves, schools stopped serving them at lunch, and apple growers nationwide lost over $250 million.
Currently, NRDC is focusing a great deal of its vast resources fighting against genetically improved foods.
The Wall Street Journal printed one of David Fenton’s internal memos, after the Alar-on-apples scandal was publicly debunked. Here’s Fenton in his own words:“We designed [the Alar Campaign] so that revenue would flow back to the Natural Resources Defense Council from the public, and we sold this book about pesticides through a 900 number and the Donahue show. And to date there has been $700,000 in net revenue from it.”
NRDC joined forces again with Fenton Communications in 1998 to promote a food-scare campaign called “Give Swordfish a Break!” which was operated by SeaWeb, an organization created by Fenton specifically for this campaign. Nearly all of the funding for this effort came from pass-through grants solicited by NRDC on behalf of SeaWeb. Two years later the anti-swordfish campaign folded, with both groups claiming victory. The whole promotion was based on the myth that Atlantic swordfish were being over-fished to the point of extinction. But according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, that simply wasn’t true.
American Corn Growers Association
At a March 21, 2000, press conference, the organic marketer-funded Center for Food Safety unveiled a petition demanding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration begin requiring warning labels on all genetically improved foods. Among the co-signers of this document were the American Corn Growers Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
With its all-American name, the American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) brings to mind visions of Heartland cornfields and a simple farm life straight out of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic.” But in reality, ACGA represents a farming style more Cuban than American.
Center for Science in the Public Interest
“The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is the undisputed leader among America’s “food police.” CSPI was founded in 1971 by current executive director Michael Jacobson, and two of his co-workers at Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law. Since then, CSPI’s joyless eating club has issued hundreds of high-profile—and highly questionable—reports condemning soft drinks, fat substitutes, irradiated meat, biotech food crops, French fries, and just about anything that tastes good.”
Earth First!
In 1997-98, the Trees Foundation, which serves as the fiscal agent for various Earth First! groups, reported to the IRS that it received funding from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Trees noted that the NRDC money was“specifically designated for” three California groups “for their work in the Headwaters Forest protection effort.” One of these groups was the Ecology Center, where Karen Pickett runs the Headwaters campaign. Pickett is also the keeper of the cash for the Earth First! Direct Action Fund.
Another group that NRDC “specifically designated” should get pass-through money from the Trees Foundation was Redwood Justice. Redwood Justice’s main program is paying the legal bills for Earth First! leader Darryl Cherney’s lawsuit against the FBI.
A spin off this group is the super radical Earth Liberation Front (ELF). “Three workers sleeping at a construction site were able to escape after the terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF) set fire to an unfinished, 200-unit condominium development late one night in August, 2003. "It could have killed someone," said San Diego fire captain Jeff Carle.”
Environmental Media Services
SeaWeb’s wholly unnecessary “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign, conceived and directed by Fenton Communications, was originally designed as a cooperative campaign with the Natural Resources Defense Council (SeaWeb and NRDC are still Fenton clients). In its typical role as media “front” group, Environmental Media Services heavily promoted the swordfish boycott on behalf of both NRDC and SeaWeb for two years, ending with a hollow declaration of victory in August 2000.
Environmental Working Group
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Working Group are both clients of leftist PR firm Fenton Communications, based in Washington, DC. David Fenton, who runs this firm, also sits on EWG’s board.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency includes a remarkable number of anti-consumer activists on various advisory committees. When invitations to join the current EPA Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee were issued in August 2001, the Environmental Working Group’s Sean Gray made the list, as did Erik Olson of NRDC, John Vickery of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Troy Seidle of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
NRDC and EWG have been tag-teaming both EPA panels and the public for several years. In one celebrated episode, both groups’ representatives pulled out of Vice President Gore’s “Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee” in 1999, claiming that even Al “Earth in the Balance” Gore wasn’t banning pesticides fast enough for their liking. The two organizations co-released a (later debunked) report in 1996 claiming that 45 million Americans were drinking “contaminated” water. Not surprisingly, EWG pointed the finger of blame at “pesticide runoff.”
Greenpeace
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace USA are both clients of leftist Washington PR boutique Fenton Communications. David Fenton’s flacks have perfected the art of the food scare, including NRDC’s Alar-on-apples fundraising scam in 1989, SeaWeb’s ridiculous 1988 swordfish boycott, and the more recent StarLink corn fiasco.
Greenpeace is the largest environmental organization in the world, with an international membership of over 5 million and offices in over 20 countries. Forbes magazine once described it as “a skillfully managed business” with full command of “the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation.” But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its“non-profit” status and its U.S. tax exemption.
Humane Society of the United States
When the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the United States Navy because it believed “human-generated noise -- including active sonars – ha[d] a negative effect on marine mammals,” the Humane Society of the United States was happy to sign on. The two groups have also sued Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport, O’Hare Airport, and others. The Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) coalition counts both HSUS and NRDC as members. KAW aims to scare the public about the supposed “overuse” of antibiotics on farm animals. They were also both members of the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s Foodspeak coalition. Members hoped to avoid lawsuits for false claims against food companies by overturning food disparagement laws.
Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
Ruckus Society
While the Ruckus Society’s Tzeporah Berman (who coordinates rainforest programs for ForestEthics in Vancouver) oversaw a Canadian anti-logging campaign on the ground, NRDC put economic pressure on companies like Home Depot, Lowe’s, Kinko’s, Nike, 3M, and Starbucks, each of which pledged to avoid buying products derived from British Columbia rainforest timber.
The Ruckus Society was founded in late 1995 by two giants of the radical environmentalist movement: Mike Roselle and Howard “Twilly” Cannon. Roselle was a founder of Earth First! (of 1980s tree-spiking fame), the group which spun off the domestic terrorist Earth Liberation Front in 1992. He also co-founded the radical Rainforest Action Network. Cannon built his extremist credentials as a front-line activist and ship’s captain with Greenpeace’s French and Russian anti-nuclear campaigns.
SeaWeb
SeaWeb began as a “project” of the NRDC, with a start-up grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Now that SeaWeb has been spun off and enjoys relative independence, its leaders still collaborate with NRDC program directors on a variety of promotions, including the wholly unnecessary (and thoroughly debunked) “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign. NRDC’s opinions on which species of menu fish are politically correct enough to eat can be found on SeaWeb’s“Seafood Choices Alliance” web site. Greenpeace USA and SeaWeb are both clients of leftist Washington PR boutique Fenton Communications, the widely-acknowledged kings of the modern food scare.
What can you say about a group of alarmist publicity-seekers whose greatest passion is “saving” fish species that aren’t even endangered? Are they crazy? Power-hungry? Misguided, as the U.S. government has said? Sadly, SeaWeb is just one in a long line of recent entrants into the food-scare industry. And judging from the the company it keeps, SeaWeb is a prime example of the well-networked Nanny Culture. Its pockets are deep, its friends are powerful, its tactics are disingenuous, and it’s not going away any time soon.
Sierra Club
The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have allied on numerous occasions to combat modern livestock farms, most notably joining with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Waterkeeper Alliance in 2003 to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for increased restrictions on pork farmers. The Sierra Club also promoted NRDC's notorious Alar on apples" food scare. The two groups have collaborated multiple times to lobby the U.S. government against biotech foods, and are members of the Keep Antibiotics Working campaign, a slick PR project that frightens Americans away from the conventional meat supply with reckless claims about the use of antibiotics in livestock.
Founded in 1892 by John Muir to "make the mountains glad," the Sierra Club is the oldest and arguably the most powerful environmental group in the nation. But its concerns are no longer limited to the happiness of the valleys. Once dedicated to conserving wilderness for future human enjoyment, the Sierra Club has become an anti-growth, anti-technology group that puts its utopian environmentalist vision before the well being of humans.
Tides Foundation
NRDC predates the Tides Center by several years, so it was never formally a Tides “project.” But it did enjoy similar “startup” assistance from the Tides Foundation during its early years. To date, Tides has used its “pass-through”granting structure to funnel over a quarter of a million dollars to NRDC, without ever acknowledging where the funds originally came from. In one example, the Tides Foundation was the funding vehicle through which NRDC received funds in 1989 to hire Fenton Communications, its PR firm of choice, to promote its much-hyped and thoroughly debunked Alar-on-apples food scare.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) calls one of its flagship programs the “Safe Food Fight.” And with WORC, the emphasis is always on fighting. After all, over 80% of WORC’s funding comes from big-money foundations, and they’re not paying WORC to be calm and rational.
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists often brags about its cooperation with other environmental groups. Among the organizations with which UCS works closely, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stands at the top of the list. UCS and NRDC regularly co-host press conferences, co-sign petitions, and co-author reports. Both groups are members of the Keep Antibiotics Working coalition and the Save our Environment Coalition.
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.
Western Organization of Resource Councils
Natural Resources Defense Council has collaborated with the Western Organization of Resource Councils in the past, most notably on matters of mining policy. During the years of the Clinton administration, NRDC and WORC co-signed at least three letters to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, urging that stricter standards be used for determining mining rights for coal in Western states. In one case, the two groups joined with Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to sue the Bureau of Land Management over the terms of its coal mining-rights leasing program.
These groups have promoted every misanthropic philosophical flavor of the day that has come down the pike for the last fifty years and if we are to believe all that is said, and I for one do, they have done it with lies, deception and junk science. We aren’t just partnering up with the NRDC; we are now in bed with every radical group in the world and they will have a say in everything that we do from now on!
And Rob Lederer thinks that this is a good thing!
Sunday, September 6,
2009
By Rich Kozlovich
Irving Langmuir 1881-1957 American chemist; awarded 1932 Nobel prize for chemistry for his work in surface chemistry.
As you read these “rules” I recommend that you precede each rule with the statement “You know it is bad science when” and then read the rule. Makes the rules much easier to understand.
1.The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
Irving Langmuir 1881-1957 American chemist; awarded 1932 Nobel prize for chemistry for his work in surface chemistry.
As you read these “rules” I recommend that you precede each rule with the statement “You know it is bad science when” and then read the rule. Makes the rules much easier to understand.
1.The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the low level of significance of the results.
3. There are claims of great accuracy.
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to zero.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
by Rich
Kozlovich
How many have tasted foie gras or even know what it is?
It is liver, but not just any old kind of liver; it is goose or duck liver; but not any old kind of goose or duck liver. It seems that when you force feed a migratory goose or duck species (this doesn’t work on non-migratory species) that it gets a large…really large liver…. which supposedly tastes really great. Foie gras, (pronounced fwa gra) is French for“fat liver”. This is achieved through a process of force feeding that goes back to ancient Egypt. “Foie gras is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.”
Now clearly this isn’t the kind of liver that my parents and grandparents generation doted on. That generation will go to a restaurant with a huge menu and go into rapture because liver and onions is the special the day! Of course that is usually beef liver, but they even like chicken livers as the special of the day.
I am 63 and you don't see people from my generation getting all that excited about liver..smothered in onions or any other way for that matter....why? I have always believed there must be a reason why anyone would like liver.. and I think I know what it is. They only liked liver because it was one of the few meats they could afford during the Great Drepression years. Liver, gizzards, chicken wings and pork ribs were mighty cheap back in those days, sometimes free. In those days they used to make chicken soup with chicken feet as the base for stock. That is one ugly sight!
In years gone by, average people didn’t have meat three meals a day. During the depths of the Great Depression many didn’t have meat once a week. Those old enough to remember the Little Rascals will remember an episode when Alfalfa was all excited because he was going to have meat at dinner that night. Meat was a big deal and if liver smothered in onions (the only way it could possibly be eaten) is all you can afford, and you have it enough in your youth, you might have the tendency to think the stuff is pretty great. Personally, I have always thought that anything that tasted that bad must be toxic.
Enough about that; back to foie gras! This is the liver that gourmets go into rapture over. As it turns out the animal rights activists are enthusiastic over it also.The difference is they want to ban it because they claim the raising process is cruel. There is an awful lot of green house gas being emitted by these people over this issue.
People who buy their food at the market and have never lived or worked on a farm should have nothing to say about this or anything else farmers do. None of these things ever became an issue until there were so many people living in the cities and so few living on farms. One hundred years ago over fifty percent on the population was involved in agriculture of some sort. Two hundred years ago most of the population farmed or at least raised some of their own food because the population in the cities was relatively small. Industrialization changed all of that, especially after WWII and so did attitudes.
We must remember that this is a process of incrementalism; one step at a time. The reality is that they are against eating any part of an animal and this is just one step in the process. Today foie gras, tomorrow the goose, the next day ducks and then chickens and so on until the eating of all animal flesh is banned. At least that is their goal, but make no mistake about it…if they hadn’t chosen animal rights it would be something else.
Take the Swiss for example. The Swiss have really gone over the edge. They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the“decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished. Folks, we have to stop being so anthropomorphic. Placing human values on non human things is irrational.
What if someone starts a movement that claims plants feel pain during harvest and therefore we shouldn’t eat bread? Would that be called Doughdoughism?
How many have tasted foie gras or even know what it is?
It is liver, but not just any old kind of liver; it is goose or duck liver; but not any old kind of goose or duck liver. It seems that when you force feed a migratory goose or duck species (this doesn’t work on non-migratory species) that it gets a large…really large liver…. which supposedly tastes really great. Foie gras, (pronounced fwa gra) is French for“fat liver”. This is achieved through a process of force feeding that goes back to ancient Egypt. “Foie gras is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.”
Now clearly this isn’t the kind of liver that my parents and grandparents generation doted on. That generation will go to a restaurant with a huge menu and go into rapture because liver and onions is the special the day! Of course that is usually beef liver, but they even like chicken livers as the special of the day.
I am 63 and you don't see people from my generation getting all that excited about liver..smothered in onions or any other way for that matter....why? I have always believed there must be a reason why anyone would like liver.. and I think I know what it is. They only liked liver because it was one of the few meats they could afford during the Great Drepression years. Liver, gizzards, chicken wings and pork ribs were mighty cheap back in those days, sometimes free. In those days they used to make chicken soup with chicken feet as the base for stock. That is one ugly sight!
In years gone by, average people didn’t have meat three meals a day. During the depths of the Great Depression many didn’t have meat once a week. Those old enough to remember the Little Rascals will remember an episode when Alfalfa was all excited because he was going to have meat at dinner that night. Meat was a big deal and if liver smothered in onions (the only way it could possibly be eaten) is all you can afford, and you have it enough in your youth, you might have the tendency to think the stuff is pretty great. Personally, I have always thought that anything that tasted that bad must be toxic.
Enough about that; back to foie gras! This is the liver that gourmets go into rapture over. As it turns out the animal rights activists are enthusiastic over it also.The difference is they want to ban it because they claim the raising process is cruel. There is an awful lot of green house gas being emitted by these people over this issue.
People who buy their food at the market and have never lived or worked on a farm should have nothing to say about this or anything else farmers do. None of these things ever became an issue until there were so many people living in the cities and so few living on farms. One hundred years ago over fifty percent on the population was involved in agriculture of some sort. Two hundred years ago most of the population farmed or at least raised some of their own food because the population in the cities was relatively small. Industrialization changed all of that, especially after WWII and so did attitudes.
We must remember that this is a process of incrementalism; one step at a time. The reality is that they are against eating any part of an animal and this is just one step in the process. Today foie gras, tomorrow the goose, the next day ducks and then chickens and so on until the eating of all animal flesh is banned. At least that is their goal, but make no mistake about it…if they hadn’t chosen animal rights it would be something else.
Take the Swiss for example. The Swiss have really gone over the edge. They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the“decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished. Folks, we have to stop being so anthropomorphic. Placing human values on non human things is irrational.
What if someone starts a movement that claims plants feel pain during harvest and therefore we shouldn’t eat bread? Would that be called Doughdoughism?
Thursday, September 3, 2009
How do
you pronounce misanthrope? Try PETA.
by Rich Kozlovich
I originally published this Friday, April 21, 2006 in my first blog. With NPMA's recent actions I feel that it is important to reprint it here now.
Misanthrope - somebody who hates people: somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people and tends to avoid them.
The next time you see a Hollywood star proudly telling everyone how much they support animal rights and they are proud members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), remember the quotes listed below from an April 15, 2006 article by Fred Geilow. Remember, this is who these people really are.
"Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." PETA statement
"I don't believe human beings have the "right to life." That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
"It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. "Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
"I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." PETA statement
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would... Only 7 percent of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box, and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species, until all hunting is stopped in California. Then, we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S.
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights"
"To those people who say, "My father is alive because of animal experimentation," I say, "Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live." Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." Bill Maher
"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
"Chickens are interesting individuals, who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog, or a cat, or even a human being." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
"Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." Stephanie Boyles, PETA
"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States
"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company
"I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day, because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group, United Poultry Concerns
"If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person, in terms of legal rights." Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer, and author of Rattling the Cage
"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." Peter Singer
"[A]rson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA (This has been used in many areas of the world already, especially labs where animal experimentation has gone on. They have even intimidated individual employees at their homes as well as attacking the facilities. There has even been talk about assassinating researchers.)
"If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA.
I have some questions.
1. When reading this sort of thing do we say to ourselves; are the views expressed here my views?
2. Are the views expressed here shared by most people?
3. Are these views the views of rational people?
4. What do you think their ultimate goals are?
5. Do you think these are the views of misanthropes?
6. Do you think all environmental activists are misanthropic?
If you answer no to the first three questions and yes to the last two isn't it appropriate to ask; why are we partnering up with the National Resource Defense Council people who are a part of this movement?
by Rich Kozlovich
I originally published this Friday, April 21, 2006 in my first blog. With NPMA's recent actions I feel that it is important to reprint it here now.
Misanthrope - somebody who hates people: somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people and tends to avoid them.
The next time you see a Hollywood star proudly telling everyone how much they support animal rights and they are proud members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), remember the quotes listed below from an April 15, 2006 article by Fred Geilow. Remember, this is who these people really are.
"Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth." PETA statement
"I don't believe human beings have the "right to life." That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig, is a dog, is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
"It would be great if all the fast food outlets' slaughterhouses, laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. "Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
"I would rather have medical experiments done on our children, than on animals." PETA statement
"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would... Only 7 percent of Americans are hunters. That means there are more of us than there are of them. It is simply a matter of democracy. The majority rules in a democracy. We are going to use the ballot box, and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species, until all hunting is stopped in California. Then, we will take it state by state." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the U.S.
"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer, known as the "Father of Animal Rights"
"To those people who say, "My father is alive because of animal experimentation," I say, "Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live." Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of tradeoff." Bill Maher
"Even if animal tests produced a cure [for AIDS], we'd be against it." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA co-founder and national director
"Chickens are interesting individuals, who have as much right not to be cooked and eaten as a dog, or a cat, or even a human being." Bruce Fredrich, PETA spokesman
"Ants are sentient beings, like we are, and have a right to life like we do, and they shouldn't be shown the level of disrespect the producers of ant farms show them." Stephanie Boyles, PETA
"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, vice president, Humane Society of the United States
"We feel that animals have the same rights as retarded children." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA, and subsequently the head of an animal-rights fundraising company
"I think it is speciesist [someone who accepts human domination over animals] to think that the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was a greater tragedy than what millions of chickens endured that day, and what they endure every day, because they cannot defend themselves against the concerted human appetites arrayed against them." Karen Davis, president of the animal rights group, United Poultry Concerns
"If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood, then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person, in terms of legal rights." Steven Wise, Harvard University lecturer, and author of Rattling the Cage
"Surely there will be some nonhuman animals whose lives, by any standards, are more valuable than the lives of some humans." Peter Singer
"[A]rson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are "acceptable crimes" when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, former director of PETA (This has been used in many areas of the world already, especially labs where animal experimentation has gone on. They have even intimidated individual employees at their homes as well as attacking the facilities. There has even been talk about assassinating researchers.)
"If someone is killing, on a regular basis, thousands of animals, and if that person can only be stopped in one way by the use of violence, then it is certainly a morally justified solution." Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for PCRM [Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine], a front group for PETA.
I have some questions.
1. When reading this sort of thing do we say to ourselves; are the views expressed here my views?
2. Are the views expressed here shared by most people?
3. Are these views the views of rational people?
4. What do you think their ultimate goals are?
5. Do you think these are the views of misanthropes?
6. Do you think all environmental activists are misanthropic?
If you answer no to the first three questions and yes to the last two isn't it appropriate to ask; why are we partnering up with the National Resource Defense Council people who are a part of this movement?
Friday, September 4, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell
The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We are constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we are using. We are told we must adopt “least toxic”(whatever that means) pest control programs. Why? Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.
This isn’t only from the environmental activists; it is a constant refrain from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market; are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually…..yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do until it is in common use. Ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.
Because of their effectiveness baits became common place in structural pest control. In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. Agriculture becomes the final testing ground for pesticides. If a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last. New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? These products have been used extensively for some time and the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.
So then we must conclude that they don’t care what the facts are. They apparently have made up their minds to advocate the view presented by the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way. Between the regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.
Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an“ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of eco-religion.
If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years; why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire; why don’t they do it? It is quite simple...clearly; the facts must not support such an action.
Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.
The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause ______. (fill in the blank) When it is discovered they were wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted, as in the Alar case, it is passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and in the Alar case, refusing to publically acknowledge their misconduct.
What are the facts regarding pesticides. There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.
There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of __________(fill in the blank) in our waters and land and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. The dose makes the poison.
Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!
Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, taste better and that they don’t have to worry about pesticides. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.
What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way; "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell
The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem. We are constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we are using. We are told we must adopt “least toxic”(whatever that means) pest control programs. Why? Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.
This isn’t only from the environmental activists; it is a constant refrain from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market; are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Actually…..yes! We aren’t allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do until it is in common use. Ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.
Because of their effectiveness baits became common place in structural pest control. In years gone by the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for use on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured. Agriculture becomes the final testing ground for pesticides. If a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last. New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? These products have been used extensively for some time and the effect on people and the environment must absolutely be known to EPA.
So then we must conclude that they don’t care what the facts are. They apparently have made up their minds to advocate the view presented by the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way. Between the regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given the completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.
Their answer to any criticism is that we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control, which cannot be truly defined. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM. Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an“ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short of eco-religion.
If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market, and they have traced the results of use of these products over the years; why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire; why don’t they do it? It is quite simple...clearly; the facts must not support such an action.
Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example along with re-registration requirements) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, organic or green pest control.
The public is constantly told by the media that pesticides cause ______. (fill in the blank) When it is discovered they were wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted, as in the Alar case, it is passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want no matter what the real truth is and no matter who is hurt, and in the Alar case, refusing to publically acknowledge their misconduct.
What are the facts regarding pesticides. There is no evidence that pesticides have adversely effected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history or any other nation that has adopted extensive pesticide use. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia; poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation and early death.
There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of __________(fill in the blank) in our waters and land and even trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what? This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. The dose makes the poison.
Still we have educated individuals teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “natural” or “organic”. Whatever those terms mean!
Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, taste better and that they don’t have to worry about pesticides. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.
Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of
California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per
day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight,
of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of
the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help
protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural
pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of
them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans
should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of
synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces
of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much
that they began to favor ``organically produced'' foods, thinking that they
would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic
gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not
man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from
plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax,
cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.
This apparently is OK because its “natural”. Chemicals are chemicals and have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu would you eat it? By the way...these foods are known carcinogens.
Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed
Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast
Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms),
Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked
Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos,
Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source:
American Council on Science and Health)
Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.
Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid,
hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives,
psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole,
methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene,
ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene,
psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene,
heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic
acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol,
benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene,
coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin,
estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides,
safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl
acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene,
benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol,
1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide,
hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin
For those that read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list that way because you are getting a multiple dose in the above Thanksgiving meal.
Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly it is impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented. Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs, after all it is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. It might interfere with all those scares they are constantly presenting as eminent disasters. That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur. They would have to go out and get real jobs.
All of this is disturbing, but what I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers (NPMA, the trade journals and state associations) to stand up to these people and publish the truth. We are appeasers, enablers and will eventually we will become traitors to our own industry.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
Since all of this started I kept having past articles that I had written years ago coming back into my mind. What was most disturbing is how right my analysis was as I re-read all of these old articles. I have posted some of them recently and this article below is a combination of articles with some adjustments. Originally I intended this as a part of my five part “common sense” series. However, after reading some of the details of the NPMA/NRDC agreement in Pest Control Technology magazine, and talking to Bob Rosenberg, I believe that things have gotten so bad I intend to do a separate series on the National Pest Management Association (NPMA). They have shown a pattern of activity that has led to what I believe is a serious betrayal of the pest control industry by our “elected” representatives at NPMA. Part I was informational, Part II challenges the philosophy behind this action, and Part III will challenge the people behind this philosophy.
No industry is capable of preserving its viability without meeting the challenge of unending and ever increasing attacks on what they are and what they do. Yet we have in our midst “intellectuals” who believe that in pest control it will be different. At the head of our national organization our“elected leadership” believes by adopting “green” initiatives that it is possible and desirable for us to negotiate an end to the use of pesticides, for the good of the industry. The claim will be that they are not negotiating the end of pesticides. There can be no other ultimate alternative to this act of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain trusted Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman trusted Joseph Stalin. They all attempted to appease these people and failed because you cannot appease someone who had an agenda and is implacable in their goals. Winston Churchill knew that and stated that "an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile hoping that he will be eaten last."
Since all of this started I kept having past articles that I had written years ago coming back into my mind. What was most disturbing is how right my analysis was as I re-read all of these old articles. I have posted some of them recently and this article below is a combination of articles with some adjustments. Originally I intended this as a part of my five part “common sense” series. However, after reading some of the details of the NPMA/NRDC agreement in Pest Control Technology magazine, and talking to Bob Rosenberg, I believe that things have gotten so bad I intend to do a separate series on the National Pest Management Association (NPMA). They have shown a pattern of activity that has led to what I believe is a serious betrayal of the pest control industry by our “elected” representatives at NPMA. Part I was informational, Part II challenges the philosophy behind this action, and Part III will challenge the people behind this philosophy.
No industry is capable of preserving its viability without meeting the challenge of unending and ever increasing attacks on what they are and what they do. Yet we have in our midst “intellectuals” who believe that in pest control it will be different. At the head of our national organization our“elected leadership” believes by adopting “green” initiatives that it is possible and desirable for us to negotiate an end to the use of pesticides, for the good of the industry. The claim will be that they are not negotiating the end of pesticides. There can be no other ultimate alternative to this act of appeasement. Neville Chamberlain trusted Adolf Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman trusted Joseph Stalin. They all attempted to appease these people and failed because you cannot appease someone who had an agenda and is implacable in their goals. Winston Churchill knew that and stated that "an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile hoping that he will be eaten last."
An industry can survive those who are foolish and careless. It can
survive the overly ambitious, but it cannot survive those who attack an
industry and what it stands for from within. The activists are more to be
desired because they present themselves as the enemy at the gate. Although they
may use deceit and cunning they are known because they carry their banner
openly. No matter how formidable they may be they cannot be as serious a threat
as those who wear the garments, speak the language and share the customs of
those within an organization while secretly working that which is harmful. They
rot the heart of an industry, undermine the pillars of support and infect the
industry with their treason to the point that those who see clearly and
understand what is really going on are left standing alone. That industry will
no longer be able to resist those who would destroy it. Can any crime be feared
more? Paraphrased from a quote by Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC)
The leadership of the National Pest Management Association (NPMA)
has embraced the latest philosophical flavor of the day and partnered up with
an organization, the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), which I believe
has some serious problms with integrity; after all, along with being
clearly, adamantly and unendingly against pesticides, these were the people who were instrumental in promoting the fraudulent Alar scare as was outlined in Part I. Not to mention all the other misanthropic organizations they have been allied with, also outlined in Part I.
This brings me to this question. Have they repented of their mischief regarding Alar? I have deliberately used the word repent here, because the root meaning is to “turn about”. Have they apologized for their actions in this matter? Have they attempted to make restitution? Even Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes fame told Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, of the American Council on Science and Health, “that he regretted having done the Alar segment, but Ed Bradley, the producer of the piece, refused to retract it.”
Have they admitted that what they said about Alar simply wasn’t true? I haven’t noticed it if they have! And if they haven’t “repented” or "turned about" on this issue, which clearly shows their misdeeds; why then would we wish to partner with them?
I do have a problem with that, especially since they have a chair at the table and I don’t think that the industry’s views are being properly represented. I believe that it is clear that the rank and file and the leadership have two different views about the pest control industry. No matter how it is spun, the NPMA leadership has now bonded with them! And for what purpose? To determine what constitutes “green pest control” for the pest control industry.
It turns out that this group, whose core values have to be seriously called into question, wasn’t happy with NPMA’s QualityPro Green program. Last October the NRDC contacted Bob Rosenberg telling him that they wanted to get behind NPMA’s QualityPro Green program, but they weren’t happy with it in the program in its current state and “wanted” four changes made in order for them to support NPMA’s program.
Bob Rosenberg says that NPMA agreed to three of their ….oh, let’s just call them what they are….demands. NPMA’s leadership stood strong though….they only accepted three out of the four.
clearly, adamantly and unendingly against pesticides, these were the people who were instrumental in promoting the fraudulent Alar scare as was outlined in Part I. Not to mention all the other misanthropic organizations they have been allied with, also outlined in Part I.
This brings me to this question. Have they repented of their mischief regarding Alar? I have deliberately used the word repent here, because the root meaning is to “turn about”. Have they apologized for their actions in this matter? Have they attempted to make restitution? Even Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes fame told Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, of the American Council on Science and Health, “that he regretted having done the Alar segment, but Ed Bradley, the producer of the piece, refused to retract it.”
Have they admitted that what they said about Alar simply wasn’t true? I haven’t noticed it if they have! And if they haven’t “repented” or "turned about" on this issue, which clearly shows their misdeeds; why then would we wish to partner with them?
I do have a problem with that, especially since they have a chair at the table and I don’t think that the industry’s views are being properly represented. I believe that it is clear that the rank and file and the leadership have two different views about the pest control industry. No matter how it is spun, the NPMA leadership has now bonded with them! And for what purpose? To determine what constitutes “green pest control” for the pest control industry.
It turns out that this group, whose core values have to be seriously called into question, wasn’t happy with NPMA’s QualityPro Green program. Last October the NRDC contacted Bob Rosenberg telling him that they wanted to get behind NPMA’s QualityPro Green program, but they weren’t happy with it in the program in its current state and “wanted” four changes made in order for them to support NPMA’s program.
Bob Rosenberg says that NPMA agreed to three of their ….oh, let’s just call them what they are….demands. NPMA’s leadership stood strong though….they only accepted three out of the four.
1. They wanted the program re-written to make sure that companies
that had bought into this “green madness” were “mandated” to follow “program
standards”.
Actually, I don’t mind this! After all, if you claim to follow a certain religion you should be required to follow the tenants of that religion. Green certainly falls into the category of neo-paganism.
2. They also wanted “independent, third party field audits” and
those audits were to be “beefed up” at $600.00 per audit for the corporate
office and $300.00 for branches with 15% being audited randomly, not exceeding
30 offices.
This was the big change. So, having state and federal bureaucrats violating the 4th and 5th amendments isn’t enough. Now we have regulators for hire violating them! And of course we have to pay additional taxes (fees) to fund them in order to keep this program viable because we apparently don’t pay enough taxes nor do we have enough regulations at the federal, state and local level. Apparently we don’t have enough regulators searching our businesses either. We need “regulators for hire” who will add a further regulatory burden on the industry.
Apparently that is what the leadership at NPMA believes. You may call them self imposed rules, but they will in fact be de facto regulations. And how do I know that they will create new rules (regulations) as time goes by? Because that is what regulators do, create regulations. Bureaucrats have one goal…to grow and perpetuate themselves and they can only do that by promoting new regulations. These regulators for hire will in effect be a de facto bureaucracy; one that is bound to be heavily influenced by the NRDC or one of their fellow green radicals.
3. The NRDC wants to “make sure that we walk the walk” and have
demanded and received a representative from outside the industry on the NPMA
advisory board, if NPMA is to expect their endorsement.
Everyone should be upset about this outrageous capitulation on the part of NPMA. This and the idea of inspectors acceptable to the NRDC should send chills down our backs. Who will determine what constitutes independent? Will they eventually demand that only they can determine who those independent people will be? It may not start out that way, but you can make book on it that it will turn that way!
Did you ever wonder why so many in the structural pest control industry are so hot to embrace IPM or “green” pest control; when both are so obviously destructive to our industry? Did you ever wonder why so many in the pesticide application industries are so hot to understand and find common ground with the environmentalists, who would dearly like to see us all commit suicide?
The first thing some of you will say is; who says it is destructive to our industry? I do! The reason why I say this is because it will ultimately take away everything we use. Green pest control will ultimately create a system of micro management, (we are not far from it now) through regulatory agencies, regarding everything we do to rid homes and businesses of pests. It will ultimately give veto power to the greenies over everything we do. They and their lackeys in industry, media and government. If you don’t believe me, then ask any greenie what he thinks about what we do and what they want to do about it.
It is clear there is an element in the chemical manufacturing, distribution and application industries that believe all the environmental claptrap. It is also clear there is an element that believes they can gain ground on their competitors by embracing the environmental movement. I have always found this to be incredible. Initially, I thought this must be some kind of weird sort ofCorporate Social Responsibility syndrome. However, I believe I have found the answer.
An article, rich with symbolism, by Dennis Prager called “Explaining Jews, Part VI: Jews who aid those who hate Jews (and America)" exposes how prominent Jews and rabbis actually make statements supporting the terrorist organizations that are working to destroy Israel in particular, and Jews in general. Throughout the course of the article he keeps coming back to the same question; why? I found his explanations, which I am reproducing with his permission, most fascinating. He states:
“How is one to explain these Jews who work to hurt Jews? I think the primary explanations are psychological. As I wrote in a previous column, it is almost impossible to overstate the pathological effects of thousands of years of murder of Jews -- culminating in the Nazi Holocaust, when nearly all Jews on the European continent were murdered -- have had on most Jews. “
He goes on to say---“even Jews who lost no relatives in the Holocaust fear another outbreak of anti-Jewish violence, and given the Nazi-like anti-Semitism in the Muslim world today, that is not exactly paranoia.”
His analysis continues; “One way to deal with this is to side with the enemy. Consciously or not, the Jew who sides with those dedicated to murdering Jews feels that he will be spared. He becomes the "good Jew" in the anti-Semites' eyes.”
As I read this I came to a realization that this sounds like a variation of the“Stockholm syndrome”. For those that are unaware of what the Stockholm syndrome is, here is the explanation from Wikipedia. “The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in a hostage, in which the hostage exhibits seeming loyalty to the hostage-taker, in spite of the danger (or at least risk) the hostage has been put in. Stockholm syndrome is also sometimes discussed in reference to other situations with similar tensions, such as battered woman syndrome,child abuse cases,and bride kidnapping.”
“The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, Stockholm in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their victimizers, and even defended their captors after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term was coined by the criminologist and psychologist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.”
“An offshoot of the Stockholm syndrome is the aptly-used term capture-bonding defined as a bond that in some instances develops between captor and captive. The term is modeled on the Swedish woman who became so attached to one of the bank robbers who held her hostage that she broke her engagement to her former lover and remained bonded, or in bondage, to her former captor while he served time in prison.”
One might say, “neither they nor we are being held captive”, and that would be true; physically. Captivity is merely one of the tools used to implement a fearful state. That fear is what effects a change in emotion and psychology. Eventually the intellect will supply the needed rationale to take you where your emotions already are.
Being constantly under attack creates sense of psychological or emotional captivity and works much the same way as being held hostage. In fact, they are all are similar because we are being held captive by our fears. Fear is the tool that is used to prompt changes in who and what we are, whether the captivity is physical, psychological, or emotional or all three. As a result, some will attempt to find common ground with those that would destroy them, in effect saying “don’t hurt me, I’ll be a good greenie’, in hopes that they will be spared while all others are sacrificed.
I keep saying it over and over again; the thing that all people have in common is they are all people and as a result the historical patterns keep repeating over and over again. We, the pesticide manufacturing, distributing and applications industry are the figurative Jews of this article.
We are a bit paranoid in thinking that no one likes or respects us. Well, just because we are paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t against us. We are vilified by the environmental movement, self-serving politicians who spout environmentalist nonsense against us as if everything the greenies say is established fact, and a radicalized and compliant media prints reams of misinformation about us.
We are constantly under attack by bureaucrats. Worse yet there are substantial numbers of the population who have been trained to believe we are one of the world’s greatest evils. Why? Because they believe the propaganda that claims we are killing future generations and destroying the environment. These are the ones who represent those practicing figurative jihad against the pest control industry. As for those within our industry who support them; these are the same as those ones defending and supporting these figurative anti-Semites against their own people. Silly us for having a sense of paranoia?
Obviously, the environmentalists regard the pesticide application industries open embrace of “green” in some form as a victory. Soon they would require some other forms of “green” by redefining what will constitute a “new green”. They have already succeeded in getting NPMA to alter their “green” certification program…substantially. They and their allies in the pesticides industries are jumping on board claiming that this is needed to have consistency nationwide and is good for the industry.
Soon they will demand the total elimination of pesticides and their allies in the pesticide applications industries would find value in this view and claim that this is good for the industry and for society and the environment, but to no avail as the greenies cry out with righteous indignation over what we will be doing with what is left. Their enmity is everlasting and nothing will ever placate them. Whatever we agree to today will be unacceptable to them tomorrow. At some point it won’t matter if their allies in the pesticide industries agreed with them or not, because there will be no pesticide application industry left.
We have to recognize what is happening. We have to understand that everything the greenies want is antithetical to what is good for the pest control industry and humanity as a whole. We must stop appeasing those who cannot be appeased and be willing and able to defend that position with irrefutable facts and logic. We need to regularly state those facts categorically and forcefully wherever this kind of contamination appears in our industry. Finally we must become aware that those in our industry who support, promote and believe in the green movement and are willing to compromise the structural pest control industry (actually all the pesticide application industries) might be psychologically impaired.
The only conclusion I can come up with regarding those within our industries that continue to support “green” pest control, or even IPM, is that they are afflicted with some variation of the Stockholm syndrome. What other conclusion can you come to when people work to destroy that which puts food on their tables, clothes on their children’s backs, roofs over their heads? If that is the case, there isn’t any reasoning with them. Make no mistake about it; green is a weapon of mass destruction! To be green is to be irrational and misanthropic!
Our
ignorance of history causes us to slander our own times. Gustave Flaubert
Monday, September 7, 200
By Rich
Kozlovich
What is the reality of bedbugs? We have them! We don’t want them! The numbers keep getting larger! They are spreading farther afield! The tools left to society don’t kill them! There are species of bedbug that are even more resistant to pesticides than the rest!
The average homeowner is faced with over the counter pesticides that don’t work or IPM or green pest control programs that are either largely ineffectual or prohibitively expensive when they work. The same is true of new technology, such as heat which absolutely works. The reality of bedbugs is this; chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will be the answer in 2010! And it must be the answer. Why?
Let’s drop back to 1946. Before the introduction of DDT bedbugs were everywhere. After the introduction of DDT they weren’t. After resistance to DDT developed in bedbugs pest controllers changed to Malathion and other products that bedbugs were not resistant to. DDT did the heavy lifting, and Malathion knocked them out.
Those were the tools; that was the chemistry that worked. However, that isn’t the story. Why did those tools work so well? That is the real question! The answer is a combination of chemical efficacy and its availability to the general society. The real story is that DDT, Malathion and all the other life saving products introduced into society were available as Do It Yourself products. That is the real story, and that is the answer to the bedbug problem.
It wasn’t the professional pest control industry that eliminated bedbugs. We had a major role to play, but no professional program will work if the problem continues to persist in a general population that cannot afford to pay someone to do the job for them. The re-introduction rate will be unending. The poorest people must be able to address this by themselves, in their own homes. They are willing to do so because they are desperate to rid themselves of the pest plague. They just need the tools.
We need to stop this nonsense about IPM and green pest control being the “glue”that holds pest control together. We need to stop this nonsense about the theoretical risks the greenies are constantly yammering about. We, the professionals of pest control, are part of that thin gray line that are the defenders of public health. We need to stop crawling on our bellies as if we should be ashamed of who we are and what we do. We need to take the field and raise the Battle Standard for all to see. We need to get back up onto our hind legs and defend what we do, the products we use and demand that everyone else, including the EPA, do the same.
The reality is this; as long as the average person is left adrift with no way to care for themselves and their families, this problem will remain a major societal plague that will never go away. Bedbugs must absolutely be addressed at the lowest levels of the economic spectrum if we are to eliminate them once again. That can only be done with chemistry that works and at a cost that the average person can afford. DIY is what really eliminated bedbugs and effective inexpensive DIY products must be made available again.
What is the reality of bedbugs? We have them! We don’t want them! The numbers keep getting larger! They are spreading farther afield! The tools left to society don’t kill them! There are species of bedbug that are even more resistant to pesticides than the rest!
The average homeowner is faced with over the counter pesticides that don’t work or IPM or green pest control programs that are either largely ineffectual or prohibitively expensive when they work. The same is true of new technology, such as heat which absolutely works. The reality of bedbugs is this; chemistry was the answer in 1946 and it will be the answer in 2010! And it must be the answer. Why?
Let’s drop back to 1946. Before the introduction of DDT bedbugs were everywhere. After the introduction of DDT they weren’t. After resistance to DDT developed in bedbugs pest controllers changed to Malathion and other products that bedbugs were not resistant to. DDT did the heavy lifting, and Malathion knocked them out.
Those were the tools; that was the chemistry that worked. However, that isn’t the story. Why did those tools work so well? That is the real question! The answer is a combination of chemical efficacy and its availability to the general society. The real story is that DDT, Malathion and all the other life saving products introduced into society were available as Do It Yourself products. That is the real story, and that is the answer to the bedbug problem.
It wasn’t the professional pest control industry that eliminated bedbugs. We had a major role to play, but no professional program will work if the problem continues to persist in a general population that cannot afford to pay someone to do the job for them. The re-introduction rate will be unending. The poorest people must be able to address this by themselves, in their own homes. They are willing to do so because they are desperate to rid themselves of the pest plague. They just need the tools.
We need to stop this nonsense about IPM and green pest control being the “glue”that holds pest control together. We need to stop this nonsense about the theoretical risks the greenies are constantly yammering about. We, the professionals of pest control, are part of that thin gray line that are the defenders of public health. We need to stop crawling on our bellies as if we should be ashamed of who we are and what we do. We need to take the field and raise the Battle Standard for all to see. We need to get back up onto our hind legs and defend what we do, the products we use and demand that everyone else, including the EPA, do the same.
The reality is this; as long as the average person is left adrift with no way to care for themselves and their families, this problem will remain a major societal plague that will never go away. Bedbugs must absolutely be addressed at the lowest levels of the economic spectrum if we are to eliminate them once again. That can only be done with chemistry that works and at a cost that the average person can afford. DIY is what really eliminated bedbugs and effective inexpensive DIY products must be made available again.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Posted
by Rich Kozlovich
You can't
build a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery. — Dr. Norman Ernest
Borlaug (1914-2009)
Borlaug the Great
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, has died at 95. Ron Bailey calls him “the man who saved more human lives than anyone else in history.” In an as-yet-unpublished letter to the New York Times, Don Boudreaux reflects: By saving millions of people from starvation, green-revolution father Norman Borlaug arguably has done more for humanity than has any other human being of the past century (”Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution,” Sept. 13). Yet unlike Sen. Kennedy’s, his death will go relatively unnoticed. He’ll certainly not be canonized in the popular mind….. Just think of the people who have gone down in history as “the Great“: Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, Charles the Great (Charlemagne), Frederick the Great, Peter the Great — despots and warmongers. Just once it would be nice to see the actual benefactors of humanity designated as “the Great”: Galileo the Great, Gutenberg the Great, Samuel Morse the Great, Alan Turing the Great.
So just for tonight, drink a toast to one of the great benefactors of the poorest people in the world, Borlaug the Great.
Norman Borlaug - The man who fed the world.
On the day Norman Borlaug was awarded its Peace Prize for 1970, the Nobel Committee observed of the Iowa-born plant scientist that "more than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world." The committee might have added that more than any other single person Borlaug showed that nature is no match for human ingenuity in setting the real limits to growth. Borlaug, who died Saturday at 95, came of age in the Great Depression, the last period of widespread hunger in U.S. history. The Depression was over by the time Borlaug began his famous experiments, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, with wheat varieties in Mexico in the 1940s. But the specter of global starvation loomed even larger, as advances in medicine and hygiene contributed to population growth without corresponding increases in the means of feeding so many. Borlaug solved that challenge by developing genetically unique strains of "semidwarf" wheat, and later rice that raised food yields as much as six fold. The result was that a country like India was able to feed its own people as its population grew from 500 million in the mid-1960s, when Borlaug's "Green Revolution" began to take effect, to the current 1.16 billion. Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters. (Wall Street Journal)
Norman Borlaug, India's 'annadaata', dies at 95
NEW DELHI: Long before Mr. Bush and Dr Rice came by to leapfrog US-India ties to a new level, it was Prof. Wheat who jump-started and nourished the relationship. Norman Borlaug, the genial scientist-pacifist who died of cancer in Dallas on Saturday, was as much India's 'annadaata' as he was the Father of the Green Revolution. Around the time Dr Borlaug arrived on the scene in the mid-1960s, the specter of famine, shortages, and starvation hung over the sub-continent. India was importing huge quantities of food grains from the US - much of it dole - to feed its growing millions in a manner that was famously described as "ship-to-mouth" sustenance. Enter Norman Borlaug, a strapping, self-made, sun-burnt American from the farmland of Iowa, who had spent more a decade by then in Mexico after hard-earned doctorate in Depression-era US. What he had pulled off in experiments in Mexico was a miracle, that if successfully applied in India, would fill its granaries to overflow - as it eventually did. By cranking up a wheat strain containing an unusual gene, Borlaug created the so-called ''semi-dwarf'' plant variety -- a shorter, stubbier, compact stalk that supported an enormous head of grain without falling over from the weight. This curious principle of shrinking the plant to increase the output on the plant from the same acreage resulted in Indian farmers eventually quadrupling their wheat -- and later, rice -- production. It heralded the Green Revolution. (Times of India)
Borlaug, father of Green Revolution, dies at 95
WASHINGTON — Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winning scientist whose work on disease-resistant wheat is credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, has died at the age of 95. The acclaimed agriculturalist, often called the father of the Green Revolution, died late on Saturday in Dallas, Texas, due to complications from cancer, according to Texas A&M University, where Borlaug served since 1984. He was best known for his work developing disease-resistant "dwarf" wheat, which yielded two to three times as much as the normal crop. "Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history," said Josette Sheeran, the head of the World Food Program, on Sunday. "His total devotion to ending famine and hunger revolutionized food security for millions of people and for many nations." (AFP)
A look at honors bestowed on Norman Borlaug
Agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution," died Saturday at his home in Dallas at age 95. Here is a look at some of the honors he received: (Associated Press)
Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution
Norman E. Borlaug, the plant scientist who did more than anyone else in the 20th century to teach the world to feed itself and whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, died Saturday night. He was 95 and lived in Dallas. The cause was complications from cancer, said Kathleen Phillips, a spokeswoman for Texas A&M University, where Dr. Borlaug had served on the faculty since 1984. Dr. Borlaug’s advances in plant breeding led to spectacular success in increasing food production in Latin America and Asia and brought him international acclaim. In 1970, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was widely described as the father of the broad agricultural movement called the Green Revolution, though decidedly reluctant to accept the title. “A miserable term,” he said, characteristically shrugging off any air of self-importance. Yet his work had a far-reaching impact on the lives of millions of people in developing countries. His breeding of high-yielding crop varieties helped to avert mass famines that were widely predicted in the 1960s, altering the course of history. Largely because of his work, countries that had been food deficient, like Mexico and India, became self-sufficient in producing cereal grains. “More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world,” the Nobel committee said in presenting him with the Peace Prize. “We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace.” The day the award was announced, Dr. Borlaug, vigorous and slender at 56, was working in a wheat field outside Mexico City when his wife, Margaret, drove up to tell him the news. “Someone’s pulling your leg,” he replied, according to one of his biographers, Leon Hesser. Assured that it was true, he kept on working, saying he would celebrate later. (NYT)
Norman Borlaug, Agronomist Who Fought World Hunger, Dies
AFM mourns the death of Norman Borlaug, a great scientist and father of the green revolution. Borlaug, a Nobel Laureate recognized the vital importance of new technologies to increase agricultural yields and feed the world - millions of people are alive today thanks to his work, which amounted to a practical and courageous challenge to the Malthusian doomsayers. As a great scientist Borlaug also defended DDT for malaria control - and we salute him. Read John Pollock's piece here………….Ronnie Coffman of the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) notes that "we have a lot of complaints about the green revolution, but those who complain have little awareness of the alternatives ... because stem rust is a global disease, it's not a national disease. We have to hang together on this thing or we will all hang separately, because you cannot defend yourself alone." Three weeks ago Coffman met a frail Borlaug, and this humble American hero gave a last, stark warning: "Don't relax. Rust never sleeps."
Looking Back on Norman Borlaug’s Achievements
Norman Borlaug died on September 12th, aged 95. The name will be unfamiliar to many, but not to those concerned about food security in the developing world. Borlaug has been called the 'grandfather of the Green Revolution' for his breakthrough in breeding disease-resistant strains of so-called semi-dwarf wheat. This led to apocalyptic forecasts of global famine – given a high profile by Paul Ehrlich and others in the 60s and 70s – being proved dramatically wrong. In the 40 years from 1963, the world population doubled, and the number of chronically malnourished people (essentially a problem of poverty and infrastructure rather than overall food availability) hardly changed. Over 3 billion more people were fed from essentially the same total area of farmland.......... Over the years, the view that humankind should work 'with Nature' – and the implicit belief by the deeper greens that our species has no greater worth than any other – has become pervasive among those with the good fortune to live in prosperous societies and have enough to eat. While trying (with significant success) to change attitudes in their own countries, environmentalists have also created a belief among development agencies that poorer countries should not follow the same path to prosperity as the industrialised world had taken. As they put it, developing countries should not make the same 'mistakes' as we had already done……….If food security can only be guaranteed by a productive, intensive farming system, so be it. First solve the problem of hunger, then deal with whatever other problems remain. Whatever critics may say, the industrialised world has been very successful at doing just this. Norman Borlaug did not want to deny developing countries the opportunity to do the same, and neither should we.
Norman Borlaug and the next Green Revolution
Norman Borlaug, who died on Saturday, can justifiably be regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. His agricultural innovations, such as the development of higher-yielding dwarf wheat, led directly to the Green Revolution, and they have been widely credited with saving a billion lives that might otherwise have been lost to starvation. The Times carries his obituary today. His passing, though, is a good moment to look at the agricultural challenges that lie ahead of us, as we prepare to feed a world that is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2040. The need for higher-yielding crops is today just as acute as it was in the post-war years when Borlaug made his advances, as the scientist himself was always keen to point out. A few quotes from Borlaug highlighted by John Hawks set out the challenge particularly clearly. Borlaug was well aware that if we are to protect our planet's biodiversity, while also feeding its increasing number of human residents, it will be impossible to bring more land under cultivation. We need every tool available to us to make the land that is already farmed more productive -- including, as Borlaug put it, "proper use of genetic engineering and biotechnology"………Agriculture, he said, is by its nature an unnatural practice, and its goal has always been to create plentiful crops that "no-one eats but us". We manage farmland in such a way as to minimise loss to weeds, birds and insects, while seeking to improve its yields with manure, artificial fertiliser and irrigation. GM crops create an opportunity to take that process a stage further, so that our species is increasingly the only one that eats the crops we sow in our fields.
Tributes to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug from Around the World
UPDATED September 14, 2009 - - Following the death of World Food Prize Founder Norman Borlaug, various tributes to his impact and lasting legacy have been coming in from all parts of the globe. In honor of Dr. Borlaug, and those whom he has inspired, the World Food Prize is pleaed to share the following statements that have paid tribute to Dr. Borlaug both following his passing and throughout his long career.
"Almost 40 years after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, you are still pushing and my hat is off to ... you. - President Barack Obama (June 30, 2008)
"With the passing away of Dr. Norman Borlaug, an era has ended, in which he spearheaded a scientific revolution in agriculture. At a time in the sixties when the country was facing the spectre of severe food shortages, the introduction of Dr. Borlaug's high yielding varieties of seeds set in motion a technological revolution in Indian agriculture that led eventually to the country achieving self-sufficiency in food grains. The Green Revolution lifted the spirits of the Indian people and gave them new hope and confidence in their ability to tackle the country's daunting economic challenges--. Dr. Norman Borlaug's life and achievements are testimony to the far reaching contribution that one man's towering intellect, persistence and scientific vision can make to human peace and progress. One of Dr. Borlaug's favourite quotations was to 'reach for the stars'. In doing so, Dr. Borlaug helped millions of people escape from a life of hunger and deprivation. On behalf of a grateful nation, I convey my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Norman Borlaug." -Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
Remembering Norman Borlaug
“It wasn't that he had a disdain for theory, but turning theory into practice is the essence of plant breeding.”
I first met Norman Borlaug as a graduate student in Plant Breeding at Iowa State University. My classmates and I dutifully filed into the agronomy auditorium to hear another Thursday seminar that afternoon in 1973. Our speaker was viewed as a feisty renegade. At the time, some faculty expressed disbelief that Norm Borlaug merited a Nobel Prize. He hadn't published a thing in a journal that mattered. Peasants knew of his work instead of the National Academy of Science. It was widely believed that he had been relegated to work in remote areas of Mexico because he couldn't cut it in either industry or academia. Rumors around his disagreements with Rockefeller Foundation executives were legendary. Many wondered if this was yet another reason he drove a jalopy on dusty Mexican roads. Frankly, we all wondered why we had to listen to this guy.
Norman Borlaug never let go of focus on hunger
Washington, D.C. — The challenge of feeding the world's poorest people consumed Norman Borlaug until his final moments. On Friday, the day before the famous scientist, Iowa native and Nobel Peace Prize laureate died at his home in Dallas, Texas, he had a final conversation with his family. "I have a problem," said Borlaug, 95, his granddaughter, Julie Borlaug, recounted Sunday. What was that, a family member asked? "Africa." Borlaug is known as the father of the Green Revolution for his success during the 1960s in breeding varieties of wheat credited with saving millions of people in Pakistan and India from starvation. But he devoted his final decades to spreading the Green Revolution to Africa by encouraging scientists to follow in his footsteps and by cajoling public officials in the United States and abroad to support their work. More than a third of the population in many sub-Saharan countries is malnourished, according to the United Nations.
Recalling the work of the greatest hunger-fighter for all time
M.S. Swaminathan recollects his five-decade association with Norman Borlaug
CHENNAI: "He was a bright, affirming flame in the midst of a sea of despair then prevailing." This was how M.S. Swaminathan described Norman Borlaug, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, who died in Dallas on Saturday night. "He was a man of extraordinary humanism, commitment to a hunger-free world and knew no nationality. He is the only person to have so far won a Nobel for agriculture." Norman Borlaug's association with India began in the late 1960s. India was then importing 10 million tonnes of wheat and "we lived a ship-to-mouth" existence. The introduction of the dwarf variety of wheat developed by him in Mexico was a turning point in India's food production pattern.
I know that some of these links are repeats of what is in the ACSH post, but I wanted to set up a posting of links. RK
Borlaug the Great
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, has died at 95. Ron Bailey calls him “the man who saved more human lives than anyone else in history.” In an as-yet-unpublished letter to the New York Times, Don Boudreaux reflects: By saving millions of people from starvation, green-revolution father Norman Borlaug arguably has done more for humanity than has any other human being of the past century (”Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution,” Sept. 13). Yet unlike Sen. Kennedy’s, his death will go relatively unnoticed. He’ll certainly not be canonized in the popular mind….. Just think of the people who have gone down in history as “the Great“: Alexander the Great, Catherine the Great, Charles the Great (Charlemagne), Frederick the Great, Peter the Great — despots and warmongers. Just once it would be nice to see the actual benefactors of humanity designated as “the Great”: Galileo the Great, Gutenberg the Great, Samuel Morse the Great, Alan Turing the Great.
So just for tonight, drink a toast to one of the great benefactors of the poorest people in the world, Borlaug the Great.
Norman Borlaug - The man who fed the world.
On the day Norman Borlaug was awarded its Peace Prize for 1970, the Nobel Committee observed of the Iowa-born plant scientist that "more than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world." The committee might have added that more than any other single person Borlaug showed that nature is no match for human ingenuity in setting the real limits to growth. Borlaug, who died Saturday at 95, came of age in the Great Depression, the last period of widespread hunger in U.S. history. The Depression was over by the time Borlaug began his famous experiments, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, with wheat varieties in Mexico in the 1940s. But the specter of global starvation loomed even larger, as advances in medicine and hygiene contributed to population growth without corresponding increases in the means of feeding so many. Borlaug solved that challenge by developing genetically unique strains of "semidwarf" wheat, and later rice that raised food yields as much as six fold. The result was that a country like India was able to feed its own people as its population grew from 500 million in the mid-1960s, when Borlaug's "Green Revolution" began to take effect, to the current 1.16 billion. Today, famines—whether in Zimbabwe, Darfur or North Korea—are politically induced events, not true natural disasters. (Wall Street Journal)
Norman Borlaug, India's 'annadaata', dies at 95
NEW DELHI: Long before Mr. Bush and Dr Rice came by to leapfrog US-India ties to a new level, it was Prof. Wheat who jump-started and nourished the relationship. Norman Borlaug, the genial scientist-pacifist who died of cancer in Dallas on Saturday, was as much India's 'annadaata' as he was the Father of the Green Revolution. Around the time Dr Borlaug arrived on the scene in the mid-1960s, the specter of famine, shortages, and starvation hung over the sub-continent. India was importing huge quantities of food grains from the US - much of it dole - to feed its growing millions in a manner that was famously described as "ship-to-mouth" sustenance. Enter Norman Borlaug, a strapping, self-made, sun-burnt American from the farmland of Iowa, who had spent more a decade by then in Mexico after hard-earned doctorate in Depression-era US. What he had pulled off in experiments in Mexico was a miracle, that if successfully applied in India, would fill its granaries to overflow - as it eventually did. By cranking up a wheat strain containing an unusual gene, Borlaug created the so-called ''semi-dwarf'' plant variety -- a shorter, stubbier, compact stalk that supported an enormous head of grain without falling over from the weight. This curious principle of shrinking the plant to increase the output on the plant from the same acreage resulted in Indian farmers eventually quadrupling their wheat -- and later, rice -- production. It heralded the Green Revolution. (Times of India)
Borlaug, father of Green Revolution, dies at 95
WASHINGTON — Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Prize winning scientist whose work on disease-resistant wheat is credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, has died at the age of 95. The acclaimed agriculturalist, often called the father of the Green Revolution, died late on Saturday in Dallas, Texas, due to complications from cancer, according to Texas A&M University, where Borlaug served since 1984. He was best known for his work developing disease-resistant "dwarf" wheat, which yielded two to three times as much as the normal crop. "Norman E. Borlaug saved more lives than any man in human history," said Josette Sheeran, the head of the World Food Program, on Sunday. "His total devotion to ending famine and hunger revolutionized food security for millions of people and for many nations." (AFP)
A look at honors bestowed on Norman Borlaug
Agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution," died Saturday at his home in Dallas at age 95. Here is a look at some of the honors he received: (Associated Press)
Norman Borlaug, 95, Dies; Led Green Revolution
Norman E. Borlaug, the plant scientist who did more than anyone else in the 20th century to teach the world to feed itself and whose work was credited with saving hundreds of millions of lives, died Saturday night. He was 95 and lived in Dallas. The cause was complications from cancer, said Kathleen Phillips, a spokeswoman for Texas A&M University, where Dr. Borlaug had served on the faculty since 1984. Dr. Borlaug’s advances in plant breeding led to spectacular success in increasing food production in Latin America and Asia and brought him international acclaim. In 1970, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was widely described as the father of the broad agricultural movement called the Green Revolution, though decidedly reluctant to accept the title. “A miserable term,” he said, characteristically shrugging off any air of self-importance. Yet his work had a far-reaching impact on the lives of millions of people in developing countries. His breeding of high-yielding crop varieties helped to avert mass famines that were widely predicted in the 1960s, altering the course of history. Largely because of his work, countries that had been food deficient, like Mexico and India, became self-sufficient in producing cereal grains. “More than any other single person of this age, he has helped provide bread for a hungry world,” the Nobel committee said in presenting him with the Peace Prize. “We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace.” The day the award was announced, Dr. Borlaug, vigorous and slender at 56, was working in a wheat field outside Mexico City when his wife, Margaret, drove up to tell him the news. “Someone’s pulling your leg,” he replied, according to one of his biographers, Leon Hesser. Assured that it was true, he kept on working, saying he would celebrate later. (NYT)
Norman Borlaug, Agronomist Who Fought World Hunger, Dies
AFM mourns the death of Norman Borlaug, a great scientist and father of the green revolution. Borlaug, a Nobel Laureate recognized the vital importance of new technologies to increase agricultural yields and feed the world - millions of people are alive today thanks to his work, which amounted to a practical and courageous challenge to the Malthusian doomsayers. As a great scientist Borlaug also defended DDT for malaria control - and we salute him. Read John Pollock's piece here………….Ronnie Coffman of the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative (BGRI) notes that "we have a lot of complaints about the green revolution, but those who complain have little awareness of the alternatives ... because stem rust is a global disease, it's not a national disease. We have to hang together on this thing or we will all hang separately, because you cannot defend yourself alone." Three weeks ago Coffman met a frail Borlaug, and this humble American hero gave a last, stark warning: "Don't relax. Rust never sleeps."
Looking Back on Norman Borlaug’s Achievements
Norman Borlaug died on September 12th, aged 95. The name will be unfamiliar to many, but not to those concerned about food security in the developing world. Borlaug has been called the 'grandfather of the Green Revolution' for his breakthrough in breeding disease-resistant strains of so-called semi-dwarf wheat. This led to apocalyptic forecasts of global famine – given a high profile by Paul Ehrlich and others in the 60s and 70s – being proved dramatically wrong. In the 40 years from 1963, the world population doubled, and the number of chronically malnourished people (essentially a problem of poverty and infrastructure rather than overall food availability) hardly changed. Over 3 billion more people were fed from essentially the same total area of farmland.......... Over the years, the view that humankind should work 'with Nature' – and the implicit belief by the deeper greens that our species has no greater worth than any other – has become pervasive among those with the good fortune to live in prosperous societies and have enough to eat. While trying (with significant success) to change attitudes in their own countries, environmentalists have also created a belief among development agencies that poorer countries should not follow the same path to prosperity as the industrialised world had taken. As they put it, developing countries should not make the same 'mistakes' as we had already done……….If food security can only be guaranteed by a productive, intensive farming system, so be it. First solve the problem of hunger, then deal with whatever other problems remain. Whatever critics may say, the industrialised world has been very successful at doing just this. Norman Borlaug did not want to deny developing countries the opportunity to do the same, and neither should we.
Norman Borlaug and the next Green Revolution
Norman Borlaug, who died on Saturday, can justifiably be regarded as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. His agricultural innovations, such as the development of higher-yielding dwarf wheat, led directly to the Green Revolution, and they have been widely credited with saving a billion lives that might otherwise have been lost to starvation. The Times carries his obituary today. His passing, though, is a good moment to look at the agricultural challenges that lie ahead of us, as we prepare to feed a world that is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2040. The need for higher-yielding crops is today just as acute as it was in the post-war years when Borlaug made his advances, as the scientist himself was always keen to point out. A few quotes from Borlaug highlighted by John Hawks set out the challenge particularly clearly. Borlaug was well aware that if we are to protect our planet's biodiversity, while also feeding its increasing number of human residents, it will be impossible to bring more land under cultivation. We need every tool available to us to make the land that is already farmed more productive -- including, as Borlaug put it, "proper use of genetic engineering and biotechnology"………Agriculture, he said, is by its nature an unnatural practice, and its goal has always been to create plentiful crops that "no-one eats but us". We manage farmland in such a way as to minimise loss to weeds, birds and insects, while seeking to improve its yields with manure, artificial fertiliser and irrigation. GM crops create an opportunity to take that process a stage further, so that our species is increasingly the only one that eats the crops we sow in our fields.
Tributes to Dr. Norman E. Borlaug from Around the World
UPDATED September 14, 2009 - - Following the death of World Food Prize Founder Norman Borlaug, various tributes to his impact and lasting legacy have been coming in from all parts of the globe. In honor of Dr. Borlaug, and those whom he has inspired, the World Food Prize is pleaed to share the following statements that have paid tribute to Dr. Borlaug both following his passing and throughout his long career.
"Almost 40 years after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, you are still pushing and my hat is off to ... you. - President Barack Obama (June 30, 2008)
"With the passing away of Dr. Norman Borlaug, an era has ended, in which he spearheaded a scientific revolution in agriculture. At a time in the sixties when the country was facing the spectre of severe food shortages, the introduction of Dr. Borlaug's high yielding varieties of seeds set in motion a technological revolution in Indian agriculture that led eventually to the country achieving self-sufficiency in food grains. The Green Revolution lifted the spirits of the Indian people and gave them new hope and confidence in their ability to tackle the country's daunting economic challenges--. Dr. Norman Borlaug's life and achievements are testimony to the far reaching contribution that one man's towering intellect, persistence and scientific vision can make to human peace and progress. One of Dr. Borlaug's favourite quotations was to 'reach for the stars'. In doing so, Dr. Borlaug helped millions of people escape from a life of hunger and deprivation. On behalf of a grateful nation, I convey my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Norman Borlaug." -Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
Remembering Norman Borlaug
“It wasn't that he had a disdain for theory, but turning theory into practice is the essence of plant breeding.”
I first met Norman Borlaug as a graduate student in Plant Breeding at Iowa State University. My classmates and I dutifully filed into the agronomy auditorium to hear another Thursday seminar that afternoon in 1973. Our speaker was viewed as a feisty renegade. At the time, some faculty expressed disbelief that Norm Borlaug merited a Nobel Prize. He hadn't published a thing in a journal that mattered. Peasants knew of his work instead of the National Academy of Science. It was widely believed that he had been relegated to work in remote areas of Mexico because he couldn't cut it in either industry or academia. Rumors around his disagreements with Rockefeller Foundation executives were legendary. Many wondered if this was yet another reason he drove a jalopy on dusty Mexican roads. Frankly, we all wondered why we had to listen to this guy.
Norman Borlaug never let go of focus on hunger
Washington, D.C. — The challenge of feeding the world's poorest people consumed Norman Borlaug until his final moments. On Friday, the day before the famous scientist, Iowa native and Nobel Peace Prize laureate died at his home in Dallas, Texas, he had a final conversation with his family. "I have a problem," said Borlaug, 95, his granddaughter, Julie Borlaug, recounted Sunday. What was that, a family member asked? "Africa." Borlaug is known as the father of the Green Revolution for his success during the 1960s in breeding varieties of wheat credited with saving millions of people in Pakistan and India from starvation. But he devoted his final decades to spreading the Green Revolution to Africa by encouraging scientists to follow in his footsteps and by cajoling public officials in the United States and abroad to support their work. More than a third of the population in many sub-Saharan countries is malnourished, according to the United Nations.
Recalling the work of the greatest hunger-fighter for all time
M.S. Swaminathan recollects his five-decade association with Norman Borlaug
CHENNAI: "He was a bright, affirming flame in the midst of a sea of despair then prevailing." This was how M.S. Swaminathan described Norman Borlaug, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, who died in Dallas on Saturday night. "He was a man of extraordinary humanism, commitment to a hunger-free world and knew no nationality. He is the only person to have so far won a Nobel for agriculture." Norman Borlaug's association with India began in the late 1960s. India was then importing 10 million tonnes of wheat and "we lived a ship-to-mouth" existence. The introduction of the dwarf variety of wheat developed by him in Mexico was a turning point in India's food production pattern.
I know that some of these links are repeats of what is in the ACSH post, but I wanted to set up a posting of links. RK
Sunday, October 25, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
In one of Thomas Sowell’s Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene he made this comment;“Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen, a college student said: "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?"
Although this is humorous I have to ask; is anyone really shocked or even surprised at this? Over educated, under smart, misinformed and uninformed seems to be the pattern. Most disturbing is their lack of common knowledge ….you know….the kind of stuff that was taught in grade school at one time. Whenever on the street interviews are conducted with college students they fail in the most basic knowledge; supposedly what is considered part of our society's“common knowledge”. Furthermore, their knowledge and understanding of history is abysmal. Even their knowledge of the world’s geography is startlingly deficient. Why?
When my sons were small we used to attend teacher conferences to go over what was being done in the schools to educate our children and what we all could do to help. I commented to the geography teacher about an article that I had just read showing that students today were failures at knowing where almost anything was in the world, including places that were in the news daily. She acknowledged that this was a problem. I told her that I could fix that problem in one year. She smiled politely asked how I could do that. I said…draw the countries! She seemed somewhat surprised and asked for clarification. I said draw the countries!
When I went to grade school we studied one or two countries each week. Initially we drew them and then covered the particulars of those countries. We loved it. Drawing a new country each week and then being graded on our art work was great fun…and it worked! We knew where everything was in the world long before we went to junior high school. How long did it take for her to implement this plan? Never!
It is bad enough that organized education has never taught kids how to think, they don’t even teach them what to think….unless it has to do with the latest form of greenie socialism. In England almost all the kids believe CO2 causes global warming, and yet approximately half of them also think that Winston Churchill was an astronaut.
Of course the young have always thought they were the bearers of “new knowledge” and a “new understanding” that would lead to “better solutions” to the world’s problems than their parents, in spite of the fact that they have little experience in life by which to weigh their views. And we all go through that brilliantly stupid stage. We talk in a demanding nonsensical patois completely unaware that we don’t have a clue. We not only don’t have the solutions, we don’t even know the right questions at that age.
In days gone by that didn’t matter so much because the adult population was much larger than the young population and could easily absorb them ….at least until the baby boomers came on the scene! All of a sudden we had a gigantic explosion of the young and dumb telling the world the way everything should be. This was the population the green movement exploited and continues to exploit. As a result it has expanded outrageously and powerfully. The green movement is so large that these groups, as a whole, bring in more money than 60 of the world’s nations.
There is a difference between traditional wisdom and conventional wisdom. Traditional wisdom has stood the test of time. Conventional wisdom is merely the latest philosophical flavor of the day and may not last as long as our memory of the last Super Bowl winner. Unfortunately, the young are quick to embrace the latest philosophical flavor of the day, and because their numbers are so large it soon becomes policy; and while waiting for the test of time to prove out these policies devastation may be left in their wake.
In his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, Thomas Sowell defined a logical fallacy in this manner; “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment."
What is the most frightening about this group is that they don’t seem to understand or care what tragic impact their policies may inflict on humanity. They seem to think that “all problems” are “due to other people not being as wise or as noble as they are.”
I wouldn’t mind that so much if they were the ones who had to pay the penalty for being wrong. Unfortunately billions of others have to pay the penalty for their wrong headedness….and that penalty is often deadly.
In the U.S. the green movement is “exempt from false advertising, transparency and other laws that govern for-profit corporations”. They have“failed to apply ethical standard to themselves, despite ample precedent set by the legal, accounting, medical, public relations and other professions. As a result, say many critics, the activists NGO’s have for too many years had free reign to misrepresent facts, hide their financial dealings, blackmail companies, ignore needs and desires that conflict with their own, and avoid accountability for the adverse consequences of agendas they promote of impose.”1
That is always a problem when you never have to face the consequences for your actions…you don’t have to care, you don’t have to suffer, you don’t have to be responsible or bear the blame for those actions; especially when you believe that you are involved in a noble experiment that will save the world; with humanity as the guinea pig. After all….their intentions were good. Along with those who have been sickened by those policies, I am really tired of hearing that. As for those who have died as a result of their policies; they can’t hear it.
We absolutely know this; all the evidence we need in order to come to a correct understanding of what the green movement represents is available for all to see….and yet…..we accommodate them, we excuse them and now even worse…… we are crawling into bed with them.
Those in leadership positions in our industry are older and now have enough experience in life which should enable us to weigh reality against each new philosophy that comes down the pike. We are no longer among the young and dumb. The young at least can be excused for their foolish enthusiasm regarding these things simply because they are young. We no longer have that excuse. I have serious misgivings about those who have led the pest control industry down this path. I have to ask; are we then willing to bear the guilt for the consequences of the green movement’s actions?
1. Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen, page 12. Also see “Rules for Corporate Warriors”, by Nick Nichols for additional examples of false or deceptive advertising, factual misrepresentations and extortionate activities by activist NGO’s.
In one of Thomas Sowell’s Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene he made this comment;“Upon learning that the Constitution requires a president to be a natural born citizen, a college student said: "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified than one born by C-section?"
Although this is humorous I have to ask; is anyone really shocked or even surprised at this? Over educated, under smart, misinformed and uninformed seems to be the pattern. Most disturbing is their lack of common knowledge ….you know….the kind of stuff that was taught in grade school at one time. Whenever on the street interviews are conducted with college students they fail in the most basic knowledge; supposedly what is considered part of our society's“common knowledge”. Furthermore, their knowledge and understanding of history is abysmal. Even their knowledge of the world’s geography is startlingly deficient. Why?
When my sons were small we used to attend teacher conferences to go over what was being done in the schools to educate our children and what we all could do to help. I commented to the geography teacher about an article that I had just read showing that students today were failures at knowing where almost anything was in the world, including places that were in the news daily. She acknowledged that this was a problem. I told her that I could fix that problem in one year. She smiled politely asked how I could do that. I said…draw the countries! She seemed somewhat surprised and asked for clarification. I said draw the countries!
When I went to grade school we studied one or two countries each week. Initially we drew them and then covered the particulars of those countries. We loved it. Drawing a new country each week and then being graded on our art work was great fun…and it worked! We knew where everything was in the world long before we went to junior high school. How long did it take for her to implement this plan? Never!
It is bad enough that organized education has never taught kids how to think, they don’t even teach them what to think….unless it has to do with the latest form of greenie socialism. In England almost all the kids believe CO2 causes global warming, and yet approximately half of them also think that Winston Churchill was an astronaut.
Of course the young have always thought they were the bearers of “new knowledge” and a “new understanding” that would lead to “better solutions” to the world’s problems than their parents, in spite of the fact that they have little experience in life by which to weigh their views. And we all go through that brilliantly stupid stage. We talk in a demanding nonsensical patois completely unaware that we don’t have a clue. We not only don’t have the solutions, we don’t even know the right questions at that age.
In days gone by that didn’t matter so much because the adult population was much larger than the young population and could easily absorb them ….at least until the baby boomers came on the scene! All of a sudden we had a gigantic explosion of the young and dumb telling the world the way everything should be. This was the population the green movement exploited and continues to exploit. As a result it has expanded outrageously and powerfully. The green movement is so large that these groups, as a whole, bring in more money than 60 of the world’s nations.
There is a difference between traditional wisdom and conventional wisdom. Traditional wisdom has stood the test of time. Conventional wisdom is merely the latest philosophical flavor of the day and may not last as long as our memory of the last Super Bowl winner. Unfortunately, the young are quick to embrace the latest philosophical flavor of the day, and because their numbers are so large it soon becomes policy; and while waiting for the test of time to prove out these policies devastation may be left in their wake.
In his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, Thomas Sowell defined a logical fallacy in this manner; “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment."
What is the most frightening about this group is that they don’t seem to understand or care what tragic impact their policies may inflict on humanity. They seem to think that “all problems” are “due to other people not being as wise or as noble as they are.”
I wouldn’t mind that so much if they were the ones who had to pay the penalty for being wrong. Unfortunately billions of others have to pay the penalty for their wrong headedness….and that penalty is often deadly.
In the U.S. the green movement is “exempt from false advertising, transparency and other laws that govern for-profit corporations”. They have“failed to apply ethical standard to themselves, despite ample precedent set by the legal, accounting, medical, public relations and other professions. As a result, say many critics, the activists NGO’s have for too many years had free reign to misrepresent facts, hide their financial dealings, blackmail companies, ignore needs and desires that conflict with their own, and avoid accountability for the adverse consequences of agendas they promote of impose.”1
That is always a problem when you never have to face the consequences for your actions…you don’t have to care, you don’t have to suffer, you don’t have to be responsible or bear the blame for those actions; especially when you believe that you are involved in a noble experiment that will save the world; with humanity as the guinea pig. After all….their intentions were good. Along with those who have been sickened by those policies, I am really tired of hearing that. As for those who have died as a result of their policies; they can’t hear it.
We absolutely know this; all the evidence we need in order to come to a correct understanding of what the green movement represents is available for all to see….and yet…..we accommodate them, we excuse them and now even worse…… we are crawling into bed with them.
Those in leadership positions in our industry are older and now have enough experience in life which should enable us to weigh reality against each new philosophy that comes down the pike. We are no longer among the young and dumb. The young at least can be excused for their foolish enthusiasm regarding these things simply because they are young. We no longer have that excuse. I have serious misgivings about those who have led the pest control industry down this path. I have to ask; are we then willing to bear the guilt for the consequences of the green movement’s actions?
1. Eco-Imperialism, Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen, page 12. Also see “Rules for Corporate Warriors”, by Nick Nichols for additional examples of false or deceptive advertising, factual misrepresentations and extortionate activities by activist NGO’s.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
I intend to have some kind of weekly update on the world of bedbugs and the torment they are causing. There is a large contingent of “experts” who have been spewing out absolute nonsense when they should know better. I intend to outline what is wrong with their views, I intend to embarrass them.
What really disturbs me about all of this is that it appears we have entirely too many pest control professionals, (we used to be exterminators, but now we are pest control professionals) who have lost sight of reality when it comes to bedbugs. I still really want to exterminate them…I know, I know….I have attitude. After all, what constitutes that which is professional is in the service and the outcome. Isn’t it?
Mike Royko, the great columnist for the Chicago Tribune, once wrote about our industry saying, “I preferred exterminators because that was specific. Pest control could mean anything from a school teacher to a tavern bouncer.” I wonder what he would have thought about Pest Management Professionals or Entomological Consultants, or Environmental Specialists. I bet he could have had a field day with Integrated Pest Management, Green Pest Control and all these Green Shields. He wasn’t impressed with anyone’s image of professionalism unless they “kilt” the bugs; everything else followed.
Royko was “the voice of the Everyman Chicago. Although caustically sarcastic, he never condescended to his readers, considering himself one of the people and maintaining a healthy skepticism about elites of all kinds.”
“We could use more Roykos now. His columns are prophetic. In the book's foreword, Studs Terkel, also of Chicago, also of the people, writes that it was "the real" that Royko searched out typically from the perspective of "somebody up against it."
“Royko saw America become laminated; its politicians phony, its values spiffed up and over-starched, its social discourse spooked by political correctness. It gnawed at him from his first column on.“
“He cared about privilege, street-level fairness and hypocrisy.” Royko got more difficult , more caustic, and more insensitive as the years went by (although I think it was society that changed…Royko was always Royko, just older, crabbier and tired of being “nice”…that last part was a joke by the way)“because of the superficial glitz of contemporary society. The ballplayers were in it for the money, the baby boomers were in it for the self-indulgence, and the politicians were in it for the polls. Whatever happened to the people behind the polls--to Royko's people?”
I didn’t always agree with him, but I really miss Royko! He understood what everyday people were suffering and had a way of cutting right past the smoke screen of nonsense spewed out by those who are prominent and right into the fire. Have we lost sight of it? Are we capable of seeing past the claptrap that has become a substitute for accomplishment? I can tell you that exterminators haven’t, although I am not so sure about Pest Management Professionals!
Efficacious chemistry in everyone’s hands was the answer in 1946 and it will have to be the answer once again in 2010 or there will be no answer. That is the historical lesson. People are fond of saying that “history repeats itself”. As someone once said; that is a falsehood, history doesn’t repeat itself; people just fail to grasp the lessons of history.
At my age people like for things to go smoothly in their lives; well life is becoming very complicated for me. My own fault too! But at least I haven’t forgotten that I am an exterminator and that is what I will continue to be. I just hope that I never desire “smooth” so much that I forget Royko’s people.
Quotes from Wikipedia and an article by JACK C. DOPPELT, a professor at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
I intend to have some kind of weekly update on the world of bedbugs and the torment they are causing. There is a large contingent of “experts” who have been spewing out absolute nonsense when they should know better. I intend to outline what is wrong with their views, I intend to embarrass them.
What really disturbs me about all of this is that it appears we have entirely too many pest control professionals, (we used to be exterminators, but now we are pest control professionals) who have lost sight of reality when it comes to bedbugs. I still really want to exterminate them…I know, I know….I have attitude. After all, what constitutes that which is professional is in the service and the outcome. Isn’t it?
Mike Royko, the great columnist for the Chicago Tribune, once wrote about our industry saying, “I preferred exterminators because that was specific. Pest control could mean anything from a school teacher to a tavern bouncer.” I wonder what he would have thought about Pest Management Professionals or Entomological Consultants, or Environmental Specialists. I bet he could have had a field day with Integrated Pest Management, Green Pest Control and all these Green Shields. He wasn’t impressed with anyone’s image of professionalism unless they “kilt” the bugs; everything else followed.
Royko was “the voice of the Everyman Chicago. Although caustically sarcastic, he never condescended to his readers, considering himself one of the people and maintaining a healthy skepticism about elites of all kinds.”
“We could use more Roykos now. His columns are prophetic. In the book's foreword, Studs Terkel, also of Chicago, also of the people, writes that it was "the real" that Royko searched out typically from the perspective of "somebody up against it."
“Royko saw America become laminated; its politicians phony, its values spiffed up and over-starched, its social discourse spooked by political correctness. It gnawed at him from his first column on.“
“He cared about privilege, street-level fairness and hypocrisy.” Royko got more difficult , more caustic, and more insensitive as the years went by (although I think it was society that changed…Royko was always Royko, just older, crabbier and tired of being “nice”…that last part was a joke by the way)“because of the superficial glitz of contemporary society. The ballplayers were in it for the money, the baby boomers were in it for the self-indulgence, and the politicians were in it for the polls. Whatever happened to the people behind the polls--to Royko's people?”
I didn’t always agree with him, but I really miss Royko! He understood what everyday people were suffering and had a way of cutting right past the smoke screen of nonsense spewed out by those who are prominent and right into the fire. Have we lost sight of it? Are we capable of seeing past the claptrap that has become a substitute for accomplishment? I can tell you that exterminators haven’t, although I am not so sure about Pest Management Professionals!
Efficacious chemistry in everyone’s hands was the answer in 1946 and it will have to be the answer once again in 2010 or there will be no answer. That is the historical lesson. People are fond of saying that “history repeats itself”. As someone once said; that is a falsehood, history doesn’t repeat itself; people just fail to grasp the lessons of history.
At my age people like for things to go smoothly in their lives; well life is becoming very complicated for me. My own fault too! But at least I haven’t forgotten that I am an exterminator and that is what I will continue to be. I just hope that I never desire “smooth” so much that I forget Royko’s people.
Quotes from Wikipedia and an article by JACK C. DOPPELT, a professor at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
For some time I have been disturbed by what has been appearing in the trade journals promoting Green Pest Management (GPM). Some months ago I sent an e-mail to Frank Andorka of Pest Management Professional (PMP) magazine and Dan Moreland, of Pest Control Technology (PCT), asking if they would allow me to interview them for an article that would appear in The Standard (Newsletter for the Ohio Pest Management Association) dealing with this issue.
Dan thanked me for asking but felt that PCT’s role was to tell the story, not to be the story. Since so much of what they print can mold the industry I found that to be unfortunate and I still do, because clearly; the trades are part of the story.
However, Frank Andorka agreed with relish…Frank does seem to enjoy pushing the edge a bit. I also asked if he could include Pete Grasso in this interview and they agreed, so we set up a luncheon date at the best steakhouse in Cleveland; John Q’s Steakhouse right in the center of Cleveland’s downtown area.
What finally prompted me to ask for this interview was an article by Pete that appeared this past April in PMP which seemed to be promoting GPM. I commented to everyone that Pete must have had an epiphany. After all, here was a guy who has been involved in the pest control industry for a nanosecond and he is already promoting GPM; so he must have had an epiphany. I told this to Pete and he seemed genuinely puzzled. He said that he gets a great deal of feedback from our industry, but this was the first (and seemingly the only time) he got a telephone call about an article…..and they were upset at what seemed to be his promotion of GPM.
As I said, Pete seemed genuinely puzzled at this because that wasn't his intention. He said that this was merely a follow up from an article that appeared some years previously (before he was involved with our industry) and he was interested in seeing if any views had changed within the industry.
I then asked them to define green. Frank started by saying that “green was the use of all tools including pesticides, emphasizing inspection. As a result, pesticide impact is minimal." He went on to say that “newer pesticides will be getting better environmental profiles, because in reality the only green manufacturers are interested is in money." (I would like to point out that Frank didn't say this to denigrate the manufacturers, merely to point out that they would react to the market because that is what they are in business for.) He also said that “you can be as green as you want, but if a house is infested with termites the homeowner wants something done. “
I then turned to Pete who had a somewhat different take…one that I was impressed with. He said that green can't be defined with our own definitions. "We need the customer’s definition. Only the customer can properly define green for us. What if you declare you are doing green pest control and the customer says that they don't’ consider what you did to be green enough? As a PMP you can only define green as your customer defines green." Pete felt that each customer has their own definition. Or they may just want green, but have no idea what that means which is why Pete and Frank liked the idea that NPMA could present one definition.
Each agreed that an industry definition was needed as a jumping off point, but Pete maintained that the definition must be within the customer’s framework of green. Frank pointed out that you have a consistent standard and if you have six or seven organizations creating competing standards, that can't happen. They both seem to agree with this concept.
Frank felt that the industry must take “control of green and not lose this issue as we lost IPM. “ This prompted some back and forth discussion and I commented that IPM was never our issue to define and neither is “green”. This issue belongs solely to the green activists. They started it and they promoted it. It belongs to them! I said that there is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control and neither is there any such thing as GPM. This is their issue and it is our job to defeat it, not embrace it. I also stated that there is no such thing as “traditional pest control” either!
If you look back to the ads that appeared in newspapers in the 1850’s the first reaction you get is….WOW they had IPM in 1850! Like medicine, pest control is a practice; it is not a methodology, and we use whatever tools that work. Those tools and techniques have changed over the last 150 years, but it was just pest control then and it is still just pest control now.
I pointed out that only two states have a definition of green. APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. That’s it….two states, Georgia and California. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM.
Frank chuckled because he had always been taught that you don't use a defining term such as IPM to define another defining term. The fact of the matter is that defining GPM is a bad as defining IPM. The states can’t do it any better than they were able to define IPM. There will be no end to the changes or demands. As I stated, pest control isn't a methodology, it is a practice. Well, IPM and GPM aren't a methodology either, but neither are they a practice. Both IPM and GPM are ideologies disguised as methodologies and that is why they are so hard to find a single definition, which I believe is a Sisyphean task.
At this point I changed the direction as I wanted to know why they don't run more articles dealing with science issues that would give the technicians the intellectual tools to defend the industry. As an example, I asked why are there not more articles on cancer and pesticides?
They felt that this isn't what the industry is interested in. They both felt that the technicians are not out there fighting the science battles of our industry. They felt that they are more concerned about how to do their work effectively and run their businesses profitably. While this is true, I disagree that there isn't enough interest in the science that defends our industry! After all, I do it all the time; why should we think that no one else wants to have the intellectual responses to these attacks against us?
I would love to see a survey of the pest control industry to see how many believe that pesticides cause cancer. I would be willing to bet that there are far more than we think because the information deliverers of our industry don't focus on it. And if our information deliverers don't explain it where else are they going to find it? If they don't explain it; doesn't that lend credence to these false health claims? After all, silence denotes agreement.
I know that there is pressure on anyone who does editorial work and takes in advertising dollars. Newspapers are brow beaten all the time by customers who are being attacked in the news or editorial sections. Pete said, “whatever you know about newspapers, it is ten times more intense in trade journals. “ Frank observed that when it comes to trade journals; it is “ten times more intense in this industry.” They seem to get it from everyone! I may have to stop browbeating the trades a little.
I asked them what their mission was for the pest control industry.
Pete – "We must be a reliable information source on technical issues, news, business information and keeping everyone informed as to what other PMP’s are doing."
Frank –"We are an advocate and conscience for the pest control industry. We advocate for the industry when we can and we act as a conscience when we must." I think that is a great quote, one that the leaders of our associations may wish to dwell on for a while.
This interview took two very fast hours, and there was a lot more give and take between us. I must say that I came away far more impressed than I expected. They are sincere in their efforts and they don't necessarily have the same views on what goes on in pest control. I think that this was what surprised me the most. They don't have meetings to decide what they think, or what they will say. I'm not sure how I feel about that as a business practice in general, but I like it as an editorial practice. One thing is for sure. Green isn't going away and it is clear that the trades aren't in a position to do many of the things that I would like to see done.
I have taken the steps to start a third trade magazine. I initially was thinking about a quarterly magazine that would focus on defending the industry, challenging irrational claims by activists, unscientific regulations and decisions by industry leaders. Unfortunately I found that the costs of such an endeavor are breath stopping. So I am looking at a web magazine that would be on the order of Townhall.com. I am attempting to get funding, writers and those with technical expertise lined up. I don’t know if this can be pulled off, but we will have to see.
Thanks to both Frank Andorka and Pete Grasso for their taking time away from their work to do this. It was very gracious of them both. As a side bar, Pete is a lot taller than I expected and Frank seems much healthier, which I am happy to report.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
For those who have asked; I know that most people split the word bed and bug to come up with bed bug….however, I find that the dictionary allows for both….and I like this spelling; bedbug, get over it!
Renee Corea has been in the forefront of New York City’s battle against bedbugs and is part of their Bed Bug Task Force. I first became aware of her web site, New York vs Bed Bugs ,some months back when she highlighted two articles I did on the subject in her post of May 24, 2009, called, Blaming EPA is not the answer either.
She went on to say, “I have been wanting to write about this for a while but the most credible public proponent of the idea that the great bed bug debacle of the 21st century is all EPA’s fault was Rich Kozlovich who has written two passionate posts on this subject, Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment and The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II,but writing about Kozlovich’s views seemed daunting because he has already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings and, well, what do you do with that, engage, laugh? For someone on the outside, even selective engagement would be acquiescing to the futility and politicizing."
I thought it worthwhile to respond by saying, “I have just become aware of your site and I will put you in my favorites. Having said that I would like to add my views to this posting. I would also like to correct one of your statements in that I have already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings. Actually I have divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains, Quislings and Churchills. Every organization is divided in this manner; appeasers, traitors or defenders.”
She responded, “Hi Rich, thank you for your comment. I will have more thoughts I expect but I just wanted to say for now that I believe that EPA is showing leadership now. Whether it is late or not, it is necessary as the situation is indeed dire, and I want to hang on to the hope that they will be able to do just that, lead. As for IPM, it’s too complex and politicized a debate for me to engage. I will have to write for an explanation of the Kilgore comment, however. It’s been hard to smile this week and your pointing out my Churchill omission did the trick, so thanks for that.”
We have corresponded ever since. I have yet to find a site that follows this issue any better and she has taken great efforts to trace the history of bedbugs and their control. I would like to recommend the site to everyone. You will have to go back some way to get it all, but the trip is worth it!
Recent articles on her site are worth exploring as she writes, “I was moved by this post: Bedbugs: A Modern-Day Leprosy. Seriously. – Bart Campolo – God’s Politics Blog (Cincinnati)”,which clearly outlines the problem with all of these so-called solutions that are being touted and promoted, whether it is IPM (whatever that really means, after all, we must remember that Phantom is now IPM, so I don’t know why Dursban can’t be IPM!) or heat treatments, freezing treatments or fumigation. Whether they work or not isn’t the issue; they are out of reach financially to the vast majority of the population of the U.S.; and if that is true, and it is, where does that leave the rest of the world? If the least of us cannot rid themselves of this plague, we will never be rid of them again.
An article that was highlighted involved an interview with Ron Harrison, Entomologist, Ph.D., is director of technical services for Orkin, Inc., which was informative but meaningless as far as outlining the real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone!
And there was a posting regarding “Bed Bug Central is coordinating charitable bed bug treatments for the holidays. Details of the program and how to apply here:” Good heartedness, compassion and kindness are not to be eschewed, but what about tomorrow and the day after that and the months and years that follow? It is the same problem and the same real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone! I say this over and over again because it is true.
Although the history of this event doesn’t correspond to this issue, Cato’s words ring in my ears; Carthago delenda est! -- Carthage must be destroyed, because it clearly shows that you must stand for something and say so….often…..if anything is to be accomplished.
For those who have asked; I know that most people split the word bed and bug to come up with bed bug….however, I find that the dictionary allows for both….and I like this spelling; bedbug, get over it!
Renee Corea has been in the forefront of New York City’s battle against bedbugs and is part of their Bed Bug Task Force. I first became aware of her web site, New York vs Bed Bugs ,some months back when she highlighted two articles I did on the subject in her post of May 24, 2009, called, Blaming EPA is not the answer either.
She went on to say, “I have been wanting to write about this for a while but the most credible public proponent of the idea that the great bed bug debacle of the 21st century is all EPA’s fault was Rich Kozlovich who has written two passionate posts on this subject, Bedbug Summit: Activity As A Substitute For Accomplishment and The Butterfield Bill: Activity as a Substitute for Accomplishment, Part II,but writing about Kozlovich’s views seemed daunting because he has already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings and, well, what do you do with that, engage, laugh? For someone on the outside, even selective engagement would be acquiescing to the futility and politicizing."
I thought it worthwhile to respond by saying, “I have just become aware of your site and I will put you in my favorites. Having said that I would like to add my views to this posting. I would also like to correct one of your statements in that I have already divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains and Quislings. Actually I have divided the pest control industry into Chamberlains, Quislings and Churchills. Every organization is divided in this manner; appeasers, traitors or defenders.”
She responded, “Hi Rich, thank you for your comment. I will have more thoughts I expect but I just wanted to say for now that I believe that EPA is showing leadership now. Whether it is late or not, it is necessary as the situation is indeed dire, and I want to hang on to the hope that they will be able to do just that, lead. As for IPM, it’s too complex and politicized a debate for me to engage. I will have to write for an explanation of the Kilgore comment, however. It’s been hard to smile this week and your pointing out my Churchill omission did the trick, so thanks for that.”
We have corresponded ever since. I have yet to find a site that follows this issue any better and she has taken great efforts to trace the history of bedbugs and their control. I would like to recommend the site to everyone. You will have to go back some way to get it all, but the trip is worth it!
Recent articles on her site are worth exploring as she writes, “I was moved by this post: Bedbugs: A Modern-Day Leprosy. Seriously. – Bart Campolo – God’s Politics Blog (Cincinnati)”,which clearly outlines the problem with all of these so-called solutions that are being touted and promoted, whether it is IPM (whatever that really means, after all, we must remember that Phantom is now IPM, so I don’t know why Dursban can’t be IPM!) or heat treatments, freezing treatments or fumigation. Whether they work or not isn’t the issue; they are out of reach financially to the vast majority of the population of the U.S.; and if that is true, and it is, where does that leave the rest of the world? If the least of us cannot rid themselves of this plague, we will never be rid of them again.
An article that was highlighted involved an interview with Ron Harrison, Entomologist, Ph.D., is director of technical services for Orkin, Inc., which was informative but meaningless as far as outlining the real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone!
And there was a posting regarding “Bed Bug Central is coordinating charitable bed bug treatments for the holidays. Details of the program and how to apply here:” Good heartedness, compassion and kindness are not to be eschewed, but what about tomorrow and the day after that and the months and years that follow? It is the same problem and the same real answer; inexpensive efficacious chemistry that is available to everyone! I say this over and over again because it is true.
Although the history of this event doesn’t correspond to this issue, Cato’s words ring in my ears; Carthago delenda est! -- Carthage must be destroyed, because it clearly shows that you must stand for something and say so….often…..if anything is to be accomplished.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
Born on September 29, 1898 he died on November 20, 1976. He was a Ukrainian agronomist and director of biology under Joseph Stalin. Rejecting traditional thought regarding Mendelian genetics and embryology he “reinterpreted Darwin’s thoughts to “fit the framework of what he called the ‘new creation biology’.” The only views that could be “scientific”under Lysenko had to be “consistent with social theory”, i.e. Stalin’s thoughts.
He supported the hybridization theories of Ivan Michurin that gained support from Stalin, which of course made his views“truth” and altered the entire structure of Russian biological thinking. This dominated the Russian field of biology for about 30 years and along with collectivization of the Russian farms they managed to starve millions to death. As a Darwinianevolutionist (versus Neo-Darwinism) he believed that evolution could be “forced” through something he called acquired inheritance. Furthermore anyone who disagreed with him was a scientific outcast and purged from their position, their jobs and in some cases died in concentrations camps.
As Director of the Institute of Genetics within the Soviet Union’s Academy of Sciences he stridently pushed the idea that plants could be forced to acquire characteristics that they had not demonstrated before through what is known as environmentally acquired inheritance, or theory of adaptation, originally promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
It wasn’t just plants though. Lysenkoists believed that just as exercise could turn a normal man into a muscle man, training could “force” cows to “happily and naturally deliver 50 liters of milk per day” which would change their normal inheritable limits of production; genetics, which they rejected, notwithstanding; believing that they could imprint acquired characteristics and skills from one generation that could be passed on to the next generation. (it gets even more complicated and irrational as it goes along)
However, all his thinking was tied to the ‘social theories’ of Stalin and his communist cohorts. Bukharin, who was a “founding member of the Soviet Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a keen botanist”, stated in 1935 that “pure science pursued for its own sake would disappear, for the interests of scientists would spontaneously turn to problems of the current Five Year Plan”.
Lysenko believed that “amassing of evidence was substituted for casual proof as the means demonstrating the “correctness” of the underlying hypotheses” and those who failed to conform to the tenets of the new biology could be silenced or suppressed as enemies of the truth. It also did not concern him if his followers “manipulated” somewhat their data or their experimental results, since minor falsifications could still support the ideological cause, which represented a higher level of truth than the precise reporting of facts.”
In other words, if they could amass enough evidence to support their ideas it didn’t matter if it was factual or not, and if that which we actually see and that which is actually occurring was entirely different from their “evidence”;it simply didn’t matter. Sound familiar?
They never were able to “train” cows to deliver 50 liters of milk a day, but they did create some interesting grafting techniques that created a fruit that“looked like an apple, smelled like a rose and tasted like a prune!”
One example of this thinking was his work on rye grain. Bewteen 1928 and 1940 Stalin’s collectivization of farms starved millions to death, so getting more grain in more areas was vital. The claim was that they could turn wheat into rye by just planting it in climates “favoring the growth of rye”. Huge acreage was devoted to this program which was intended to “teach” wheat to become rye.
Literally hundreds of thousands of individual grains of wheat were examined, and some turned out to be rye. The fact that the harvesting machines used that year were used the previous year to harvest rye didn’t bother them in the least. And as for those foolish enough to point out that the rye grains may have been contaminants from the previous harvest; well…..things didn’t go well for them as truth wasn’t as important as promoting the ideological thinking, or if you will, the “consensus” science. They were silenced and branded lackeys of western imperialism and western biological thinking. Sound familiar?
What happened to the rest? For almost 30 years some of the finest minds in Russian biology either “became infected with this apparent madness” or“converted” to it. “Other scientists, who were skeptical, were threatened with loss of their working and publishing opportunities if they did not conform to these views. As a result they were forced to adjust the direction of their research or to contribute some kind of work which was in accord with the Stalinist ideology.” Some got around this by publishing entirely in Latin …which the commissars were ignorant of. Some refused to bend to the madness of the new biological ideology at all, and were permanently silenced.
Remember Bukharin? In later years he said “mass annihilation of completely defenseless men, with women and children" under forced collectivization and liquidation of kulaks as a class that dehumanized the Party members with "the profound psychological change in those communists who took part in the campaign. Instead of going mad, they accepted terror as a normal administrative method and regarded obedience to all orders from above as a supreme virtue... They are no longer human beings. They have truly become the cogs in a terrible machine." He later found out how true this was when his onetime close personal friend Stalin had him killed; after a trial of course.
Why do I bring this up? The views and thinking in the green movement and those within the political realm as compared to Lysenkoism and those monsters that murdered millions of innocent people with their policies are very similar.
Lysenko came to prominence because he was “discovered by a sensational journalist by the name of Fedorovich.” Articles appeared in Pravda praising his abilities, which mostly amounted to attacking real science and making promises that never had a chance of becoming reality based on his unfounded views of reality, which amounted to junk science.
Here is one such example of his meddling. They could only use seed potatoes from Northern Russia because a degenerative virus existed in Southern Russia. This was expensive so when Lysenko made the pronouncement that it wasn’t a virus causing this at all, but was in reality a problem with hot temperatures; the Politburo jumped on it. His solution was to plant in the summer for a fall harvest and he claimed that this would eliminate the degeneration problem. The result was disastrous, in spite of the selectively favorable reports, which made the “studies” fit the preconceived conclusion that promoted his junk science.
In point of fact, Lysenko later proclaimed that there was no such thing as viruses, setting Russian virology back for years, and yet much of his work is now considered fraudulent. Not just wrong, but fraudulent, and he was the driving power in Russian agrarian science for almost 30 years. Thirty years of fraud, thirty years of watching disaster swirl around them, thirty years of knowingly manipulating the data to promote nonsense for personal gain.
How different is it today? Many have come into prominence in modern times promoting junk science in order to promote environmental issues, the “higher truth” if you will, in much the same manner. As Viv Forbes notes, ““The public has been misled on this issue by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.” Truth is not the holy grail of science. It is grant money. Grant money that is only distributed to those who tout a certain “socially” acceptable line.
Born on September 29, 1898 he died on November 20, 1976. He was a Ukrainian agronomist and director of biology under Joseph Stalin. Rejecting traditional thought regarding Mendelian genetics and embryology he “reinterpreted Darwin’s thoughts to “fit the framework of what he called the ‘new creation biology’.” The only views that could be “scientific”under Lysenko had to be “consistent with social theory”, i.e. Stalin’s thoughts.
He supported the hybridization theories of Ivan Michurin that gained support from Stalin, which of course made his views“truth” and altered the entire structure of Russian biological thinking. This dominated the Russian field of biology for about 30 years and along with collectivization of the Russian farms they managed to starve millions to death. As a Darwinianevolutionist (versus Neo-Darwinism) he believed that evolution could be “forced” through something he called acquired inheritance. Furthermore anyone who disagreed with him was a scientific outcast and purged from their position, their jobs and in some cases died in concentrations camps.
As Director of the Institute of Genetics within the Soviet Union’s Academy of Sciences he stridently pushed the idea that plants could be forced to acquire characteristics that they had not demonstrated before through what is known as environmentally acquired inheritance, or theory of adaptation, originally promoted by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.
It wasn’t just plants though. Lysenkoists believed that just as exercise could turn a normal man into a muscle man, training could “force” cows to “happily and naturally deliver 50 liters of milk per day” which would change their normal inheritable limits of production; genetics, which they rejected, notwithstanding; believing that they could imprint acquired characteristics and skills from one generation that could be passed on to the next generation. (it gets even more complicated and irrational as it goes along)
However, all his thinking was tied to the ‘social theories’ of Stalin and his communist cohorts. Bukharin, who was a “founding member of the Soviet Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a keen botanist”, stated in 1935 that “pure science pursued for its own sake would disappear, for the interests of scientists would spontaneously turn to problems of the current Five Year Plan”.
Lysenko believed that “amassing of evidence was substituted for casual proof as the means demonstrating the “correctness” of the underlying hypotheses” and those who failed to conform to the tenets of the new biology could be silenced or suppressed as enemies of the truth. It also did not concern him if his followers “manipulated” somewhat their data or their experimental results, since minor falsifications could still support the ideological cause, which represented a higher level of truth than the precise reporting of facts.”
In other words, if they could amass enough evidence to support their ideas it didn’t matter if it was factual or not, and if that which we actually see and that which is actually occurring was entirely different from their “evidence”;it simply didn’t matter. Sound familiar?
They never were able to “train” cows to deliver 50 liters of milk a day, but they did create some interesting grafting techniques that created a fruit that“looked like an apple, smelled like a rose and tasted like a prune!”
One example of this thinking was his work on rye grain. Bewteen 1928 and 1940 Stalin’s collectivization of farms starved millions to death, so getting more grain in more areas was vital. The claim was that they could turn wheat into rye by just planting it in climates “favoring the growth of rye”. Huge acreage was devoted to this program which was intended to “teach” wheat to become rye.
Literally hundreds of thousands of individual grains of wheat were examined, and some turned out to be rye. The fact that the harvesting machines used that year were used the previous year to harvest rye didn’t bother them in the least. And as for those foolish enough to point out that the rye grains may have been contaminants from the previous harvest; well…..things didn’t go well for them as truth wasn’t as important as promoting the ideological thinking, or if you will, the “consensus” science. They were silenced and branded lackeys of western imperialism and western biological thinking. Sound familiar?
What happened to the rest? For almost 30 years some of the finest minds in Russian biology either “became infected with this apparent madness” or“converted” to it. “Other scientists, who were skeptical, were threatened with loss of their working and publishing opportunities if they did not conform to these views. As a result they were forced to adjust the direction of their research or to contribute some kind of work which was in accord with the Stalinist ideology.” Some got around this by publishing entirely in Latin …which the commissars were ignorant of. Some refused to bend to the madness of the new biological ideology at all, and were permanently silenced.
Remember Bukharin? In later years he said “mass annihilation of completely defenseless men, with women and children" under forced collectivization and liquidation of kulaks as a class that dehumanized the Party members with "the profound psychological change in those communists who took part in the campaign. Instead of going mad, they accepted terror as a normal administrative method and regarded obedience to all orders from above as a supreme virtue... They are no longer human beings. They have truly become the cogs in a terrible machine." He later found out how true this was when his onetime close personal friend Stalin had him killed; after a trial of course.
Why do I bring this up? The views and thinking in the green movement and those within the political realm as compared to Lysenkoism and those monsters that murdered millions of innocent people with their policies are very similar.
Lysenko came to prominence because he was “discovered by a sensational journalist by the name of Fedorovich.” Articles appeared in Pravda praising his abilities, which mostly amounted to attacking real science and making promises that never had a chance of becoming reality based on his unfounded views of reality, which amounted to junk science.
Here is one such example of his meddling. They could only use seed potatoes from Northern Russia because a degenerative virus existed in Southern Russia. This was expensive so when Lysenko made the pronouncement that it wasn’t a virus causing this at all, but was in reality a problem with hot temperatures; the Politburo jumped on it. His solution was to plant in the summer for a fall harvest and he claimed that this would eliminate the degeneration problem. The result was disastrous, in spite of the selectively favorable reports, which made the “studies” fit the preconceived conclusion that promoted his junk science.
In point of fact, Lysenko later proclaimed that there was no such thing as viruses, setting Russian virology back for years, and yet much of his work is now considered fraudulent. Not just wrong, but fraudulent, and he was the driving power in Russian agrarian science for almost 30 years. Thirty years of fraud, thirty years of watching disaster swirl around them, thirty years of knowingly manipulating the data to promote nonsense for personal gain.
How different is it today? Many have come into prominence in modern times promoting junk science in order to promote environmental issues, the “higher truth” if you will, in much the same manner. As Viv Forbes notes, ““The public has been misled on this issue by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.” Truth is not the holy grail of science. It is grant money. Grant money that is only distributed to those who tout a certain “socially” acceptable line.
• Global warming will destroy the world.
• Global warming is caused by western industrialization.
• Global Warming can only be fixed if we give the rest of the world all our money and shut down our manufacturing plants.
• The world is reaching a “tipping point” from which we can’t recover, so we can’t wait.
• Cancer is on the increase as a result of modern lifestyles.
• Only solar and wind energy can save us because there is no oil any longer and even if there was its use must be opposed.
• Eating meat causes global warming.
• Pesticides cause every known disease and infirmity that can be conjured up.
• Drinking water is contaminated and causes an unending list of ailments.
• Plastic toys impact reproduction.
• Vaccinations cause autism.
• DDT causes…..oh….just stick anything in there and it will be approved.
• And the one I really like the best; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, which displays “the symptoms of every disease or disorder known [in] psychology, psychiatry, and the general medical profession." And there is no cure!
• Global warming is caused by western industrialization.
• Global Warming can only be fixed if we give the rest of the world all our money and shut down our manufacturing plants.
• The world is reaching a “tipping point” from which we can’t recover, so we can’t wait.
• Cancer is on the increase as a result of modern lifestyles.
• Only solar and wind energy can save us because there is no oil any longer and even if there was its use must be opposed.
• Eating meat causes global warming.
• Pesticides cause every known disease and infirmity that can be conjured up.
• Drinking water is contaminated and causes an unending list of ailments.
• Plastic toys impact reproduction.
• Vaccinations cause autism.
• DDT causes…..oh….just stick anything in there and it will be approved.
• And the one I really like the best; Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome, which displays “the symptoms of every disease or disorder known [in] psychology, psychiatry, and the general medical profession." And there is no cure!
Try
applying for a grant that proves otherwise. What is sad is that so many have to
suffer before everyone realizes that what has happened in the past is being
repeated now. More subtly of course; after all, no one is being taken out and
shot or sent to concentration camps for scientific disagreements, but those who
haven’t touted the “acceptable” line have lost grants, jobs and been prevented
from publishing articles in scientific journals that are critical of
the“science” promoting these issues. The fact of the matter is that Lysenkoism
is a pattern of thinking that is the same today as it was then; and over the
long haul just as deadly to humanity.
Sources:
Ecology Sanity, by Claus and Bolander
Sick of It All, by Michael Fumento
Wikipedia
I would also like to draw everyone's attention to a recent article;
Politicizing science - Thomas Sowell: Do not expect disinterested search for truth when money's involved
Sources:
Ecology Sanity, by Claus and Bolander
Sick of It All, by Michael Fumento
Wikipedia
I would also like to draw everyone's attention to a recent article;
Politicizing science - Thomas Sowell: Do not expect disinterested search for truth when money's involved
Saturday, December 26, 2009
By Rich
Kozlovich
For years I have been distressed at the lack of aggressive reporting by the information deliverers of our industry; including Pest Control Technology, Pest Management Professionals, the National Pest Management Association and even the Professional Pest Management Alliance for not dealing with all of these health scares involving pesticides that are nothing more than junk science. Future articles will deal with scares that haven’t been properly defended against by our industry. There will be articles dealing with pesticides and cancer, autism, asthma, endocrine disruption, multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, IQ, and even that most elusive scare of them all known as the “window of vulnerability”.
For all of my adult life I have heard about products that “must” cause cancer because they have been tested for carcinogenicity on rodents. How did all of this scare mongering get started?
A weed killer known as aminotriazole was applied to cranberry crops in 1957, although it hadn’t yet been approved for that application until the following year. Tests showed that when aminotriazole was fed to rats, at a concentration of 100 parts per million, cancer could be induced in the thyroid, therefore it was declared carcinogenic by the Food and Drug Administration.
What does that really mean? The human equivalent would mean that human beings would have to ingest 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day of their lives for years. We have come to understand the insanity of this kind of testing in recent years, but the mentality still prevails. We also seem to fail to recognize that mice are not little rats and rats are not little people! Just because some product tests positive in mice doesn’t mean that it will even test positive in a rat; let alone people!
The EPA is aware of this, but they still insist on using these kinds of tests to determine what is and what isn’t carcinogenic. This isn’t the best science required by the Information Quality Act, but the EPA claims that these determinations don’t fall under the IQA because this is a matter of EPA policy, not science. I will be dealing with this in another article.
Although there were no detected residues in 1958, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Arthur Fleming announced on November 9th, 1959 that cranberries from Oregon had been contaminated with aminotriazole and warned that other shipments from Washington and Oregon (which was 9% of the overall crop) may also be contaminated. He noted that Wisconsin, Massachusetts and New Jersey berries were not contaminated but he recommended that no one buy any cranberries at all ........15 days before Thanksgiving.
People went right over the edge. Michigan, Kentucky and Washington State called for “voluntary suspensions”. Ohio banned cranberry sales entirely. So also did San Francisco and Chicago. Restaurants and grocery stores purged their pantries and shelves of cranberry products and a nightclub in Chicago maintained a one to a customer limit on cranberry cocktails.
Although growers agreed to work with the FDA over this, they were furious at Secretary Fleming and demanded apologies and some even demanded he be dismissed from his post. The backtracking started immediately! In those days farmers were a whole lot more important to the politicians than green scare mongering activists.
Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson publically stated that he would have cranberries for Thanksgiving. Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, both running for President of the United States, really got into the act. Nixon had four helpings of cranberry sauce and Kennedy drank two glasses of cranberry juice. This made a huge difference! Although there were very real losses, it was far less than the 45 to 50 million (Fifty million dollars in 1959 had the buying power of about 365 million dollars today) than was anticipated. Far different from the fraudulent Alar scare of 1989 when farmers became far less important to politicians than green scare mongering activists!
We have learned that these types of risks are “infinitesimal” due to the“enormous” amounts fed to rats. “Dr. Edwin Astwood, a professor of medicine at Tufts University, noted that certain turnips naturally contained 100 times as much anti-thyroid potency as did any cranberries contaminated with aminotriazole.”
This pattern plays out all though nature in the foods we eat. Real scientists have always known this! However the public is just now coming to this understanding, in spite of claims of activists, the bureaucrats, the media and the political element that doesn’t care about anything except getting elected.
This event did exacerbate the public’s already chemophobic mentality because of“wildlife and conservation groups and … pure food enthusiasts, who believe that chemical residues on agriculture products pose a threat to (human) health”.
To put this in its proper perspective, Dr. Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, states that a cup (one cup mind you) of coffee contains 11 different carcinogens, and in that one cup of coffee you will consume more carcinogens than all the pesticide residue on all the food you will consume in one year.
Claus and Bolander note that “There are approximately 2 million organic compounds known. (This was printed in 1972. Currently there are over 4 million and 100,000 new compounds being produced every year and although, “the division between "organic" and "inorganic" carbon compounds while "useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry... is somewhat arbitrary". I am not sure what are the significance of those numbers, since there “is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some text books define an organic compound as one containing a C-H bond. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic.” It is enough to be said that the number of organic compounds is large, but whether the number is two million or ten million, natural or synthetic, is immaterial to the principles stated below.)
The majority of them are natural, but some have been produced in man’s laboratories. It is often stated that there is a clear difference between man-made chemicals and those which occur naturally, but the borders are actually fluid...many chemicals which were synthesized and first identified in laboratories were later found to occur in nature. Again the principle questions to be considered when talking about contamination with organic compounds are: how great are the amounts to which humans are exposed and what are the relative risks when compared with “natural” contaminants?”
The consequences of this scare are being felt today because it gave impetus to the 1958 Delaney clause, which was an amendment to The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which “codified the ‘mouse-as-a-little-man’ principle” and that massive amounts of any product fed to rodents would have the same effect as“moderate doses” in human beings and the FDA’s (and Secretary Fleming’s) hands were tied.
We know this isn’t true! At some point the molecular load of any agent is far too small for cells to begin to respond to their presence. This is known as the“Threshold Principle”. “When the causative agent or source is below the threshold, one speaks of the ‘no-effect level’. In nature, the threshold principle operates equally in the realms of atoms, of cells, of whole organisms, and even in ecosystems.”
But the “public has been taught to fear trace amounts of chemicals regardless of the actual human health risk. And this boggy little brouhaha laid the groundwork for scares yet to come.”
Sources:
The American Council on Science and Health, Facts Versus Fears, pgs. 6, 7.
Ecological Sanity, by Claus and Bolander, pgs. 188, 189, 212
For years I have been distressed at the lack of aggressive reporting by the information deliverers of our industry; including Pest Control Technology, Pest Management Professionals, the National Pest Management Association and even the Professional Pest Management Alliance for not dealing with all of these health scares involving pesticides that are nothing more than junk science. Future articles will deal with scares that haven’t been properly defended against by our industry. There will be articles dealing with pesticides and cancer, autism, asthma, endocrine disruption, multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, IQ, and even that most elusive scare of them all known as the “window of vulnerability”.
For all of my adult life I have heard about products that “must” cause cancer because they have been tested for carcinogenicity on rodents. How did all of this scare mongering get started?
A weed killer known as aminotriazole was applied to cranberry crops in 1957, although it hadn’t yet been approved for that application until the following year. Tests showed that when aminotriazole was fed to rats, at a concentration of 100 parts per million, cancer could be induced in the thyroid, therefore it was declared carcinogenic by the Food and Drug Administration.
What does that really mean? The human equivalent would mean that human beings would have to ingest 15,000 pounds of cranberries every day of their lives for years. We have come to understand the insanity of this kind of testing in recent years, but the mentality still prevails. We also seem to fail to recognize that mice are not little rats and rats are not little people! Just because some product tests positive in mice doesn’t mean that it will even test positive in a rat; let alone people!
The EPA is aware of this, but they still insist on using these kinds of tests to determine what is and what isn’t carcinogenic. This isn’t the best science required by the Information Quality Act, but the EPA claims that these determinations don’t fall under the IQA because this is a matter of EPA policy, not science. I will be dealing with this in another article.
Although there were no detected residues in 1958, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Arthur Fleming announced on November 9th, 1959 that cranberries from Oregon had been contaminated with aminotriazole and warned that other shipments from Washington and Oregon (which was 9% of the overall crop) may also be contaminated. He noted that Wisconsin, Massachusetts and New Jersey berries were not contaminated but he recommended that no one buy any cranberries at all ........15 days before Thanksgiving.
People went right over the edge. Michigan, Kentucky and Washington State called for “voluntary suspensions”. Ohio banned cranberry sales entirely. So also did San Francisco and Chicago. Restaurants and grocery stores purged their pantries and shelves of cranberry products and a nightclub in Chicago maintained a one to a customer limit on cranberry cocktails.
Although growers agreed to work with the FDA over this, they were furious at Secretary Fleming and demanded apologies and some even demanded he be dismissed from his post. The backtracking started immediately! In those days farmers were a whole lot more important to the politicians than green scare mongering activists.
Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson publically stated that he would have cranberries for Thanksgiving. Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, both running for President of the United States, really got into the act. Nixon had four helpings of cranberry sauce and Kennedy drank two glasses of cranberry juice. This made a huge difference! Although there were very real losses, it was far less than the 45 to 50 million (Fifty million dollars in 1959 had the buying power of about 365 million dollars today) than was anticipated. Far different from the fraudulent Alar scare of 1989 when farmers became far less important to politicians than green scare mongering activists!
We have learned that these types of risks are “infinitesimal” due to the“enormous” amounts fed to rats. “Dr. Edwin Astwood, a professor of medicine at Tufts University, noted that certain turnips naturally contained 100 times as much anti-thyroid potency as did any cranberries contaminated with aminotriazole.”
This pattern plays out all though nature in the foods we eat. Real scientists have always known this! However the public is just now coming to this understanding, in spite of claims of activists, the bureaucrats, the media and the political element that doesn’t care about anything except getting elected.
This event did exacerbate the public’s already chemophobic mentality because of“wildlife and conservation groups and … pure food enthusiasts, who believe that chemical residues on agriculture products pose a threat to (human) health”.
To put this in its proper perspective, Dr. Bruce Ames, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, states that a cup (one cup mind you) of coffee contains 11 different carcinogens, and in that one cup of coffee you will consume more carcinogens than all the pesticide residue on all the food you will consume in one year.
Claus and Bolander note that “There are approximately 2 million organic compounds known. (This was printed in 1972. Currently there are over 4 million and 100,000 new compounds being produced every year and although, “the division between "organic" and "inorganic" carbon compounds while "useful in organizing the vast subject of chemistry... is somewhat arbitrary". I am not sure what are the significance of those numbers, since there “is no "official" definition of an organic compound. Some text books define an organic compound as one containing a C-H bond. Others state that if a molecule contains carbon it is organic.” It is enough to be said that the number of organic compounds is large, but whether the number is two million or ten million, natural or synthetic, is immaterial to the principles stated below.)
The majority of them are natural, but some have been produced in man’s laboratories. It is often stated that there is a clear difference between man-made chemicals and those which occur naturally, but the borders are actually fluid...many chemicals which were synthesized and first identified in laboratories were later found to occur in nature. Again the principle questions to be considered when talking about contamination with organic compounds are: how great are the amounts to which humans are exposed and what are the relative risks when compared with “natural” contaminants?”
The consequences of this scare are being felt today because it gave impetus to the 1958 Delaney clause, which was an amendment to The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, which “codified the ‘mouse-as-a-little-man’ principle” and that massive amounts of any product fed to rodents would have the same effect as“moderate doses” in human beings and the FDA’s (and Secretary Fleming’s) hands were tied.
We know this isn’t true! At some point the molecular load of any agent is far too small for cells to begin to respond to their presence. This is known as the“Threshold Principle”. “When the causative agent or source is below the threshold, one speaks of the ‘no-effect level’. In nature, the threshold principle operates equally in the realms of atoms, of cells, of whole organisms, and even in ecosystems.”
But the “public has been taught to fear trace amounts of chemicals regardless of the actual human health risk. And this boggy little brouhaha laid the groundwork for scares yet to come.”
Sources:
The American Council on Science and Health, Facts Versus Fears, pgs. 6, 7.
Ecological Sanity, by Claus and Bolander, pgs. 188, 189, 212
Sunday, December 27, 2009
By Rich Kozlovich
On April 1, 2009 Pete Grasso did a good job of identifying how people in the industry are beginning to identify with “going green” in his article, The Evolution of Green.
On April 1, 2009 Pete Grasso did a good job of identifying how people in the industry are beginning to identify with “going green” in his article, The Evolution of Green.
• Green. It's the biggest buzzword right now — not just in the
pest management industry but in everyday life.
• Green is the hot topic everyone is talking about.
• Green has moved past the point of simply being a term — green is now a movement
• …many will argue that integrated pest management (IPM) is green pest solutions.
• Green is here to stay.
• Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.
• Green is the hot topic everyone is talking about.
• Green has moved past the point of simply being a term — green is now a movement
• …many will argue that integrated pest management (IPM) is green pest solutions.
• Green is here to stay.
• Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.
Heterodoxy isn’t for
the faint of heart and truth be told…it isn’t for most everyone else either.
The trade journals for our industry are simply not crusading publications. They
are not now, nor do I ever believe they will be rocks in the current.
I think that this is mostly due to two factors. Basically they were never created for this purpose. They were created to educate the industry. That has varied somewhat, but that is what they do, and for the most part they do a good job of it. Those who fit this mold were naturally brought in to run the trades and as a result they may never be crusaders. However, this concept for the trades came into being (taking a look at the history of PCT and PMP is quite interesting and worth the effort) long before the environmental movement and the EPA came into existence. The concerns are different now.
They note that Austin Frishman urges the industry “to be proactive and define and adopt green as a way of doing business (April 2008).” Quite frankly; there are a large number of prominent individuals in the industry, and at least one Hall of Fame winner who have believed for a long time that Austin has lost it and needs to retire, including me. Green isn’t ours to define or own; it is the insane nightmare wholly owned by the environmental movement and it is ours to defeat.
Green isn’t just about doing business. Pete is correct in stating that Green is a movement! It is a movement that has demonstrated a total disregard for humanity. It is an irrational and misanthropic movement that believes the number one problem with the planet is people. They have likened people to diseases such as cancer and AIDS and even a virus that is infecting the planet. The best thing they call humanity is a pest.
They rhapsodize about how quickly the world will turn back into an “Eden” after mankind is wiped out by some sort of virus that they pray will befall us. How insane is that? Who would be left to care? This is what Green really is, a movement rife with irrational and misanthropic “solutions”. Who but the mindless can buy into this? Who but the mindless can promote this? Who but the mindless can believe this is a good thing?
Everywhere in the world where people live in the manner that the greenies demand we adopt are lessons in dystopia. Why can’t we understand that? It is bad enough that we don’t get the real history of what going green means, we, as an industry don’t even know that history. Dystopia is the Sancho Panza of the green movement. It follows the green movement everywhere their “solutions” are implemented. In South American they convinced the leaders in these countries that chlorine in the drinking water was going to cause cancer. They removed the chlorine from their drinking water and hundreds died and tens of thousands were sickened. Have we lost our minds listening to and embracing these people’s ideas and views?
Pete went on to say that, “Many pest management professionals (PMPs) have embraced the idea of providing green pest solutions for their customers. Others are still trying to define what it means to have a green program, and some are hoping green is a passing fad. We're here to tell those hearty holdouts that it's not”, and “Green is here to stay. Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.”
I have no objection to a pest control company providing any service that their customers want. What I object to is the idea that there really is something called “Green Pest Management”. There is no such thing! It is pest control…period! The fact that someone is focusing on the using of one type of product over others, or one program over another doesn’t make it anything but pest control. When we start to call pest control by other names such a s IPM or GPM we imply that this is different, better and superior to what everyone else is doing. Claptrap! By focusing on some products or techniques to the exclusion of others or vice versa doesn’t make it anything other than pest control; nor is it better, different or superior.
Pete quoted “Linda Prentice, associate certified entomologist with Bug-Out Service in Jacksonville, Fla.,” who “believes the industry has reached the point where everyone agrees that going green is the way to go”, and that "I think the industry has a pretty good idea now of what it means to be green," she says. "When Bug-Out started to define green as botanical, all-natural products, the company looked at the last 10 years and realized it was headed in that direction all along."
There are a number of logical fallacies here.
One, the industry will never reach the point where “everyone” will agree that“green is the way to go” because there is no such thing as GPM any more than there is any such thing as IPM in structural pest control.
Two, the industry has never had any idea what green means and neither does anyone else. As I stated in my article, The Trades and Me: A Dialog on Going Green, there are only two states that have a definition of GPM. APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. Two states did! That’s it, two states, Georgia and California. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM. GPM is even more indefinable than IPM! They are so intellectually inadequate that they use a defining term, IPM, to define another defining term. Then again, defining green makes everyone intellectually inadequate because there is no scientific basis for “green”. In short, there are no facts to support any claim that one thing is more green than another.
Three, using “botanicals” doesn’t make someone green no matter what everyone agrees on. That is their definition, and that is ok with me, but let’s not confuse their views with anyone else’s view on what constitutes green, or even reality. They are still using chemicals. Chemicals that have been processed into some usable and deliverable form! So what makes this different from what everyone buys from FMC, Bayer, Dow, DuPont or any of the other pesticide manufacturers? And please don’t even dare tell me that they are healthier for their customers!
I think that this is mostly due to two factors. Basically they were never created for this purpose. They were created to educate the industry. That has varied somewhat, but that is what they do, and for the most part they do a good job of it. Those who fit this mold were naturally brought in to run the trades and as a result they may never be crusaders. However, this concept for the trades came into being (taking a look at the history of PCT and PMP is quite interesting and worth the effort) long before the environmental movement and the EPA came into existence. The concerns are different now.
They note that Austin Frishman urges the industry “to be proactive and define and adopt green as a way of doing business (April 2008).” Quite frankly; there are a large number of prominent individuals in the industry, and at least one Hall of Fame winner who have believed for a long time that Austin has lost it and needs to retire, including me. Green isn’t ours to define or own; it is the insane nightmare wholly owned by the environmental movement and it is ours to defeat.
Green isn’t just about doing business. Pete is correct in stating that Green is a movement! It is a movement that has demonstrated a total disregard for humanity. It is an irrational and misanthropic movement that believes the number one problem with the planet is people. They have likened people to diseases such as cancer and AIDS and even a virus that is infecting the planet. The best thing they call humanity is a pest.
They rhapsodize about how quickly the world will turn back into an “Eden” after mankind is wiped out by some sort of virus that they pray will befall us. How insane is that? Who would be left to care? This is what Green really is, a movement rife with irrational and misanthropic “solutions”. Who but the mindless can buy into this? Who but the mindless can promote this? Who but the mindless can believe this is a good thing?
Everywhere in the world where people live in the manner that the greenies demand we adopt are lessons in dystopia. Why can’t we understand that? It is bad enough that we don’t get the real history of what going green means, we, as an industry don’t even know that history. Dystopia is the Sancho Panza of the green movement. It follows the green movement everywhere their “solutions” are implemented. In South American they convinced the leaders in these countries that chlorine in the drinking water was going to cause cancer. They removed the chlorine from their drinking water and hundreds died and tens of thousands were sickened. Have we lost our minds listening to and embracing these people’s ideas and views?
Pete went on to say that, “Many pest management professionals (PMPs) have embraced the idea of providing green pest solutions for their customers. Others are still trying to define what it means to have a green program, and some are hoping green is a passing fad. We're here to tell those hearty holdouts that it's not”, and “Green is here to stay. Green has evolved, and green continues to evolve in the pest management industry.”
I have no objection to a pest control company providing any service that their customers want. What I object to is the idea that there really is something called “Green Pest Management”. There is no such thing! It is pest control…period! The fact that someone is focusing on the using of one type of product over others, or one program over another doesn’t make it anything but pest control. When we start to call pest control by other names such a s IPM or GPM we imply that this is different, better and superior to what everyone else is doing. Claptrap! By focusing on some products or techniques to the exclusion of others or vice versa doesn’t make it anything other than pest control; nor is it better, different or superior.
Pete quoted “Linda Prentice, associate certified entomologist with Bug-Out Service in Jacksonville, Fla.,” who “believes the industry has reached the point where everyone agrees that going green is the way to go”, and that "I think the industry has a pretty good idea now of what it means to be green," she says. "When Bug-Out started to define green as botanical, all-natural products, the company looked at the last 10 years and realized it was headed in that direction all along."
There are a number of logical fallacies here.
One, the industry will never reach the point where “everyone” will agree that“green is the way to go” because there is no such thing as GPM any more than there is any such thing as IPM in structural pest control.
Two, the industry has never had any idea what green means and neither does anyone else. As I stated in my article, The Trades and Me: A Dialog on Going Green, there are only two states that have a definition of GPM. APSCRO (Association of Structural Pest Control Regulatory Officials) sent out a survey to find out if any states had a definition for green. Two states did! That’s it, two states, Georgia and California. “Georgia’s definition is that “Green Pest Management can best be defined as a service that employs and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach while utilizing fewer of the earth’s resources as a part of a larger effort to reduce human impacts on the environment”. California’s report of a definition of GPM referenced their existing definition of integrated pest management and did not elaborate further on GPM. GPM is even more indefinable than IPM! They are so intellectually inadequate that they use a defining term, IPM, to define another defining term. Then again, defining green makes everyone intellectually inadequate because there is no scientific basis for “green”. In short, there are no facts to support any claim that one thing is more green than another.
Three, using “botanicals” doesn’t make someone green no matter what everyone agrees on. That is their definition, and that is ok with me, but let’s not confuse their views with anyone else’s view on what constitutes green, or even reality. They are still using chemicals. Chemicals that have been processed into some usable and deliverable form! So what makes this different from what everyone buys from FMC, Bayer, Dow, DuPont or any of the other pesticide manufacturers? And please don’t even dare tell me that they are healthier for their customers!
Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual
definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that; any other
definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color.
An
architect friend of mine and I had a conversation dealing with this idea that
green can be defined. He told me that steel is a green product. I laughed
incredulously and asked how that could be? He said it was recyclable so it was
listed as a green product. Insane? Because there is no way to logically and
intelligently define a concept that has no scientific basis for its existence.
It is all emotion, feeling good about ourselves and the planet, feeling self
righteous and better than our peers. Let’s take a look as some of the quotes
and analyze what motivates these people!
• "To the general public, green means something and makes
them feel as though they're doing something good." - Kevin Kordek,
president of A-Active Termite and Pest Control in Virginia Beach, Va.
• "I
think term green is more about marketing than it is about action.” "For
our company, we became green almost 15 years ago but we called it IPM or
'common sense.' "Common sense tells you, if there's a better way to do
something, then do it," he continues For us, that meant getting rid of
baseboard spraying years ago."- Matt Nixon, chief executive officer of
American Pest Management in Washington D.C.
Pete
cites the efforts of “Genma Holmes, president of Holmes Pest Control in
Hermitage, Tenn.,” who “jumped on green right away because that's what her
customers wanted. Holmes conducted her own focus groups to find out what
services consumers looked for in a pest management company. She goes on to say
that, "I don't care what the industry is doing; I'm going to do what my
customers are asking for," Holmes says. "Consumers' words to me were,
'We want something green.'"
I don’t have a problem with that because that is merely responding to the market place, but is that really it? I keep wondering…..is this really what“all” of her customers wanted? In Ohio I rarely have anyone insist of IPM let alone GPM. I have only lost one account because of GPM. I will be the first to admit that Ohioans are more emotionally balanced than those that live on the east and west coasts, but I find it hard to believe that everyone there is this unbalanced. Most of our pest control people merely offer “whatever services you are comfortable with” or something similar as their slogan.
Pete goes on to say, “she's gotten into green because her children are into "saving the earth." And there it is….. isn’t it. None of the nonsensical claims by the greenies has come true and the health claims they spew out have turned out to be claptrap, but “Green” makes them feel good! My question is now and has always been….how were we destroying the Earth before? We made it better, healthier, safer and made it possible for modern living. Is that what they want to replace by going green? That is what the environmentalists want!
I don’t have a problem with that because that is merely responding to the market place, but is that really it? I keep wondering…..is this really what“all” of her customers wanted? In Ohio I rarely have anyone insist of IPM let alone GPM. I have only lost one account because of GPM. I will be the first to admit that Ohioans are more emotionally balanced than those that live on the east and west coasts, but I find it hard to believe that everyone there is this unbalanced. Most of our pest control people merely offer “whatever services you are comfortable with” or something similar as their slogan.
Pete goes on to say, “she's gotten into green because her children are into "saving the earth." And there it is….. isn’t it. None of the nonsensical claims by the greenies has come true and the health claims they spew out have turned out to be claptrap, but “Green” makes them feel good! My question is now and has always been….how were we destroying the Earth before? We made it better, healthier, safer and made it possible for modern living. Is that what they want to replace by going green? That is what the environmentalists want!
• "Part of the evolution of green — and I would say it's
still an embryo — is that it has a ways to go before there is a definition of
green in the pest management industry," "Will there come a point in
time when all PMPs subscribe to a particular methodology that is considered to
be greener than what we do now?" - Kordek says.
I agree
with this statement, except that there is no such thing as a methodology in
pest control. Pest control is a practice, like medicine and requires differing
techniques and tools based on the applicator’s knowledge and experience.
However, this demonstrates there is no scientific basis for “green” and clearly
that there is no definition for GPM that will stand the test of time. It isn’t
science. Today’s absolute truth will become tomorrow’s absolute nonsense, and not
because new facts have been discovered. It will become nonsense because another
new philosophical flavor of the day will be promoted by the activists, touted
by their bureaucratic acolytes and advertised by a corrupt media; and these
people will clutch it to their breasts.
• "We'll get better and better tools," says Jack
Marlowe, president of Eden Advanced Pest Technologies in Olympia, Wash. "I
think our ability to step up and do IPM, by the pure sense of that definition,
will become better and better."
If green is so effective why then do they need “better and better tools” and what will those tools be? Chemicals? If so, how is that different than (for lack of a better term) “traditional” pest control? And what in the world is“the pure sense of that definition” that “will become better and better."? We in Ohio recently adopted an IPM standard. I was privileged to be a part of that process and I can tell you that it took two years from start to finish; and every state that has done so has gone through the same struggle. Why? If IPM had a “pure definition” it certainly wasn’t obvious to the casual observer, or anyone else for that matter. I keep hearing terms like, Deep IPM, Pure IPM, True IPM and Real IPM. When does the defining and re-defining stop?
What is the matter with everyone? There is no such thing as IPM in structural pest control because IPM is an agricultural term. And that is the only area that it can be defined scientifically because it is based on threshold limits. A certain amount of pests do a certain amount of damage. After pests reach a certain threshold limit the amount of damage they do justifies pesticide applications economically. That is IPM….period; and has no place in structural pest control.
• "Regardless of what color you're calling your program, you
have to be more deliberate about the choices you're making about
materials," Marlowe says "You have to be able to defend your
position. Whatever you choose, you need to be able to make your case as to why
you choose what you choose."
I am not
a Pest Management Professional; I am not an Entomological Consultant. I am part
of the thin gray line that stands between the public and disaster. I am an
exterminator and I am proud to call myself an exterminator! I simply do pest
control! I don’t need to color it! Pest control isn’t a methodology, it is a
practice. Green isn’t even that. Green is an ideology that is based on an
irrational philosophy that is rife with misanthropic goals. Who but the
mindless could embrace such nonsense?
Monday, December 28, 2009
I sent out a Green Notes newsletter each week in 2009. I have had
people e-mail me saying “thank you for all the work that you do” putting
together these fifty two issues. Naturally I am always flattered and I thank
them for making me feel as if it isn’t all in vain, but there isn’t really as
much work as you might think….at least for me. I would have been reading these
articles and researching the information anyway. That’s where the most time is
involved, so after that, it’s pretty much a snap. Perhaps what makes it all
special is the desire to share this information; which is appreciated and
enjoyed , or irritating depending on one’s point of view.
At the end of the year I go back and take all the issues and break them down into the individual categories and archive those links by subject. If it is an Endangered Species Act subject that I have an interest in I can go back and find the article dealing with that subject much more easily. I also break these articles down into animal categories.
In most of my Green Notes issues I have a section called, “Quotes of the Week”. As I was going through all of the quotes I couldn’t help thinking how insightful some of them were when all of a sudden I had a SHAZAM moment. Why not create a readable article out of nothing but these quotes even if they have to be paraphrased?
I am going to have to watch those SHAZAM moments! I keep forgetting that I have a job that interferes with my life; if I had known how much work this was going to turn out to be I wouldn’t have undertaken this task in the first place, but……. Here it is!
By Rich Kozlovich
For me, pragmatism is not enough, nor is that fashionable word consensus. To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?
Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us . Opposing this new authoritarian collectivist green offensive is "The Battle of Our Times" . For me, the laws of physics are not subject to change by virtue of a public consensus or declarations of highly placed politicians and government science bureaucrats. We're under attack by a lot of alarmists . We must learn and remember that the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary .
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. I have said more than once that history never repeats itself: what happens is that people keep forgetting it . Show me someone who does not read books and I will show you someone lost in the fog of propaganda, manipulation, and the lies that pass for the news of the day. Books can tell you who you are, what you believe, and why. They always leave you changed in some fashion .
Fortunate is the person who can look back at his or her life and say, "I would do it all again, the same way.” Most of us mortals have made mistakes, sometimes too many to count. Some mistakes have to do with career. Some have to do with money. Some have to do with other poor decisions and poor choices – reconsidered, of course, with the benefit of hindsight. But the ones that cause the most regret and the most pain have to do with the treatment of other people –especially those who loved and trusted us. We finally discover the value and worth of what we once had and failed to appreciate . Let all who are here remember that we are on the stage of history, and that whatever our station may be, and whatever part we have to play, great or small, our conduct is liable to be scrutinized, not only by history, but by our own descendants .
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane . Losing liberty over a theoretical threat is the main concern here (no one has ever been killed by manmade global warming. because there is no way to distinguish manmade warming from natural) . We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is that the real science does not support global warming and never did. Real scientists, branded dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end this vast and terrible hoax .
We keep hearing outrageous statements from the greenies claiming that modern living is killing us and they repeat things they know are false over and over again. The Bolsheviks discovered that truth does not matter so long as there is reiteration. The greenies have no difficulty whatever in countering a fact by a lie which, if repeated often enough and loudly enough, becomes accepted by the people .
It ain’t what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's the things you know for sure that just ain't so . Think about the things that have improved our lives the most over the past century – medical advances, the transportation revolution, huge increases in consumer goods, dramatic improvements in housing, the computer revolution. The people who created these things – the doers – are not popular heroes. Our heroes are the talkers who complain about the doers .
In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years, notes climatologist John Christy: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they live far better than anyone in history . Then ask yourself….do I really want to abandon what we have to live in squalor and dystopia? Because that is the alternative!
Greenies don't like tidal power, it might upset the fish, you know. So: Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric are positively EVIL; windmills are no good; tidal power is no good. There's just no such thing as a happy Greenie . What is the alternative? What will make the greenies happy? Make no mistake: Living green is really about someone else micro-regulating you -- downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained .
Journalists have generally given up on seeking to understand science, but instead look for the next scientist who will say something strange so that they have a “story” . Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered , and with the internet we have discovered that the media squandered any credibility they had many years ago.
Let’s just take Global Warming scares promoted by the media. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s.
It will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one meter" Changes in solar irradiation have been the dominant causes of changes in climate. Volcanic eruptions can have caused some cooling events and greenhouse gases may have contributed to the increase in temperature over the last decades. However, the influence of solar variability has been the major forcing factor and will probably also remain so in the future .
Every totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it was the“Aryan” fantasy of racial purity. With the USSR, it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularized, semi-pagan Western societies in historic decline, it is global warming .
Environmentalists-even mainstream environmentalists are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behavior and restrict economic activity. Their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. They are interested in their businesses and their profits made with the help of politicians” . Take away the grant money and they will go away.
Why are economic conditions chaotic? The reason is simple. Americans no longer possess the freedom to produce the goods and services required to maintain their former standard of living. Taxation – both direct and indirect through currency inflation – runaway government regulation and government-sponsored-and-encouraged litigation have reduced the productivity of Americans below that required to maintain their way of life. This tyranny –this economic slavery – has been produced entirely by the federal and state governments of the United States .
Science has traditionally been held in high esteem. That clearly is no longer the case. What has changed? The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming? In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy , yet those who dared question the “consensus science” of the warmers were declared, skeptics and deniers such as the holocaust deniers. In short…they were called heretics.
What is the mission of the environmentalists? To spread the truth! No matter how many lies it takes. Green activists will always be outraged about something. What outrages them on any given day will depend on the emotions they’re feeling on any given day . This is where I really have a problem with modern-day environmentalism; it confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric . Those who talk about climate change are the same ones who occupy the tenth circle of Hell for many Americans: Politicians, the Media, Scientists, Educators, Hippies, and Showbiz types. So it’s a moral imperative to be against what they’re for.
At the end of the year I go back and take all the issues and break them down into the individual categories and archive those links by subject. If it is an Endangered Species Act subject that I have an interest in I can go back and find the article dealing with that subject much more easily. I also break these articles down into animal categories.
In most of my Green Notes issues I have a section called, “Quotes of the Week”. As I was going through all of the quotes I couldn’t help thinking how insightful some of them were when all of a sudden I had a SHAZAM moment. Why not create a readable article out of nothing but these quotes even if they have to be paraphrased?
I am going to have to watch those SHAZAM moments! I keep forgetting that I have a job that interferes with my life; if I had known how much work this was going to turn out to be I wouldn’t have undertaken this task in the first place, but……. Here it is!
By Rich Kozlovich
For me, pragmatism is not enough, nor is that fashionable word consensus. To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?
Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us . Opposing this new authoritarian collectivist green offensive is "The Battle of Our Times" . For me, the laws of physics are not subject to change by virtue of a public consensus or declarations of highly placed politicians and government science bureaucrats. We're under attack by a lot of alarmists . We must learn and remember that the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary .
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. I have said more than once that history never repeats itself: what happens is that people keep forgetting it . Show me someone who does not read books and I will show you someone lost in the fog of propaganda, manipulation, and the lies that pass for the news of the day. Books can tell you who you are, what you believe, and why. They always leave you changed in some fashion .
Fortunate is the person who can look back at his or her life and say, "I would do it all again, the same way.” Most of us mortals have made mistakes, sometimes too many to count. Some mistakes have to do with career. Some have to do with money. Some have to do with other poor decisions and poor choices – reconsidered, of course, with the benefit of hindsight. But the ones that cause the most regret and the most pain have to do with the treatment of other people –especially those who loved and trusted us. We finally discover the value and worth of what we once had and failed to appreciate . Let all who are here remember that we are on the stage of history, and that whatever our station may be, and whatever part we have to play, great or small, our conduct is liable to be scrutinized, not only by history, but by our own descendants .
The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane . Losing liberty over a theoretical threat is the main concern here (no one has ever been killed by manmade global warming. because there is no way to distinguish manmade warming from natural) . We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is that the real science does not support global warming and never did. Real scientists, branded dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end this vast and terrible hoax .
We keep hearing outrageous statements from the greenies claiming that modern living is killing us and they repeat things they know are false over and over again. The Bolsheviks discovered that truth does not matter so long as there is reiteration. The greenies have no difficulty whatever in countering a fact by a lie which, if repeated often enough and loudly enough, becomes accepted by the people .
It ain’t what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's the things you know for sure that just ain't so . Think about the things that have improved our lives the most over the past century – medical advances, the transportation revolution, huge increases in consumer goods, dramatic improvements in housing, the computer revolution. The people who created these things – the doers – are not popular heroes. Our heroes are the talkers who complain about the doers .
In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years, notes climatologist John Christy: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they live far better than anyone in history . Then ask yourself….do I really want to abandon what we have to live in squalor and dystopia? Because that is the alternative!
Greenies don't like tidal power, it might upset the fish, you know. So: Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric are positively EVIL; windmills are no good; tidal power is no good. There's just no such thing as a happy Greenie . What is the alternative? What will make the greenies happy? Make no mistake: Living green is really about someone else micro-regulating you -- downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained .
Journalists have generally given up on seeking to understand science, but instead look for the next scientist who will say something strange so that they have a “story” . Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered , and with the internet we have discovered that the media squandered any credibility they had many years ago.
Let’s just take Global Warming scares promoted by the media. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s.
It will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one meter" Changes in solar irradiation have been the dominant causes of changes in climate. Volcanic eruptions can have caused some cooling events and greenhouse gases may have contributed to the increase in temperature over the last decades. However, the influence of solar variability has been the major forcing factor and will probably also remain so in the future .
Every totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it was the“Aryan” fantasy of racial purity. With the USSR, it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularized, semi-pagan Western societies in historic decline, it is global warming .
Environmentalists-even mainstream environmentalists are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behavior and restrict economic activity. Their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. They are interested in their businesses and their profits made with the help of politicians” . Take away the grant money and they will go away.
Why are economic conditions chaotic? The reason is simple. Americans no longer possess the freedom to produce the goods and services required to maintain their former standard of living. Taxation – both direct and indirect through currency inflation – runaway government regulation and government-sponsored-and-encouraged litigation have reduced the productivity of Americans below that required to maintain their way of life. This tyranny –this economic slavery – has been produced entirely by the federal and state governments of the United States .
Science has traditionally been held in high esteem. That clearly is no longer the case. What has changed? The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming? In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy , yet those who dared question the “consensus science” of the warmers were declared, skeptics and deniers such as the holocaust deniers. In short…they were called heretics.
What is the mission of the environmentalists? To spread the truth! No matter how many lies it takes. Green activists will always be outraged about something. What outrages them on any given day will depend on the emotions they’re feeling on any given day . This is where I really have a problem with modern-day environmentalism; it confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric . Those who talk about climate change are the same ones who occupy the tenth circle of Hell for many Americans: Politicians, the Media, Scientists, Educators, Hippies, and Showbiz types. So it’s a moral imperative to be against what they’re for.
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its
objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on
families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism
is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s
a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” –
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
It’s bad
enough that politicians and scientists have been drinking the Kool-Aid, what is
truly amazing is how many corporate types have been imbibing and buying into
these anti-business Corporate Social Responsibility scenarios. When the
corporate Neville Chamberlains ultimately forfeit their salaries, bonuses and
their jobs thanks to their spineless leadership and the anti-capitalism cabal
that now inhabits wine and cheese bars in the District of Columbia, I hope to
be around to ask this simple question: “So, how’s that hope and change working
out for you ?
Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favors central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someone’s property than to subordinate one’s private property rights to environmental concerns. If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks. It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy.
There is one good thing about the lunatic "global warming" catechism now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda camps : When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand precisely the same remedies for "global cooling" (which they will cleverly dub "climate change") as they did for "global warming" -- that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that America and particularly the "capitalist rich" must be "punished" and "made to sacrifice" in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of town .
Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism.
The EPA's muddled machinations should not come as a surprise, because the agency long has been a haven for scientifically insupportable policies perpetrated by anti-technology ideologues in career and appointed positions. It has a sordid history of incompetence, duplicity, and pandering to the most extreme factions of the environmental movement, all of which appears to be accelerating. The environmental movement has become so radical as to be an easily identified hazard to American life, and the EPA is not on my list of favorite agencies.
There is no dealing with the greenies. They will never be satisfied and as for those who wish to define green and adopt it as a business model and make the green movement partners of some sort; let me help you! Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that; any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color. Remember, when you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.
When I wrote this article in Word I inserted foot notes with numbers that linked the quotes to the names listed below. I can't seem to get blogger to accept this set up, so I just listed the names. Suffice it to say the 99% of this article are the quotes. I inserted some of my words in order to link the quotes. If you wish to see the names that go with the quotes, please to Green Notes Quotes 2009. RK
Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech:
Ludwig von Mises
Viv Forbes
James A. Peden , atmospheric physicist
Dan Miller, a publisher at the Heartland Institute
H. L. Mencken
Paul Johnson
Gerard Jackson is Brookesnews economics editor
Alan Caruba
Larry Elder
Winston Churchill
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)
Dr. Roy Spenser
Alan Caruba
Winston Churchill, Brighton, October 4, 1947
Mark Twain
Thomas Sowell
Paul Driessen
Jon Ray
Steve Milloy
Stephen Murgatroyd
James Lewis
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen Emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Peter Mullen
Vaclav Klaus, EU President
Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., energy expert and scientist.
Jon Ray
Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland
Rich Kozlovich
Patrick Moore
Dr. Roy Spenser
Nick Nichols
Dr. Jay Lehr
Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen
Vin Suprynowicz
Thomas Sowell
Henry Miller and Gilbert Ross
Nancy Brown, Township Trustee in Clark County, Ohio
Climate change is not a scientific problem that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found a scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favors central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someone’s property than to subordinate one’s private property rights to environmental concerns. If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks. It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy.
There is one good thing about the lunatic "global warming" catechism now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda camps : When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand precisely the same remedies for "global cooling" (which they will cleverly dub "climate change") as they did for "global warming" -- that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that America and particularly the "capitalist rich" must be "punished" and "made to sacrifice" in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of town .
Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism.
The EPA's muddled machinations should not come as a surprise, because the agency long has been a haven for scientifically insupportable policies perpetrated by anti-technology ideologues in career and appointed positions. It has a sordid history of incompetence, duplicity, and pandering to the most extreme factions of the environmental movement, all of which appears to be accelerating. The environmental movement has become so radical as to be an easily identified hazard to American life, and the EPA is not on my list of favorite agencies.
There is no dealing with the greenies. They will never be satisfied and as for those who wish to define green and adopt it as a business model and make the green movement partners of some sort; let me help you! Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that; any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color. Remember, when you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.
When I wrote this article in Word I inserted foot notes with numbers that linked the quotes to the names listed below. I can't seem to get blogger to accept this set up, so I just listed the names. Suffice it to say the 99% of this article are the quotes. I inserted some of my words in order to link the quotes. If you wish to see the names that go with the quotes, please to Green Notes Quotes 2009. RK
Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech:
Ludwig von Mises
Viv Forbes
James A. Peden , atmospheric physicist
Dan Miller, a publisher at the Heartland Institute
H. L. Mencken
Paul Johnson
Gerard Jackson is Brookesnews economics editor
Alan Caruba
Larry Elder
Winston Churchill
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)
Dr. Roy Spenser
Alan Caruba
Winston Churchill, Brighton, October 4, 1947
Mark Twain
Thomas Sowell
Paul Driessen
Jon Ray
Steve Milloy
Stephen Murgatroyd
James Lewis
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen Emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Peter Mullen
Vaclav Klaus, EU President
Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., energy expert and scientist.
Jon Ray
Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland
Rich Kozlovich
Patrick Moore
Dr. Roy Spenser
Nick Nichols
Dr. Jay Lehr
Paul Driessen
Paul Driessen
Vin Suprynowicz
Thomas Sowell
Henry Miller and Gilbert Ross
Nancy Brown, Township Trustee in Clark County, Ohio
No comments:
Post a Comment