Thank you, John Stossel!

In My Humble Opinion
1

One of the few “good guys” around these days in commercial journalism, John Stossel, had an excellent one-hour program last night (06/29/01) on ABC, “Tampering With Nature.”

In it, he had the balls to suggest that science & technology, on balance, might be making our lives better, not worse.

He also suggested that some environmental groups, instead of teaching our kids to think for themselves, may be indoctrinating them in the P.C. Party Line instead.

Sometimes it seems he is a lone voice crying out in the wilderness of sanity (how’s that for a metaphor?). Thank you, John, and keep up the good work! :slight_smile:

2

I also agreed with Stossel last night on his program. Especially about the elementary school kids being brain washed. They were doing that when I was in elementary school (1989-1994) (although we didn’t go on field trips to hear activists speak). I could remember countless activities having to do with the earth and those projects were drilled into my head. Living in Las Vegas we never stopped hearing about water conservation, even on TV when children’s TV hours were on in the afternoon. But those activists are wasting their breaths. The kids forget about it when they become materialistic self-absorbed teenagers.

And I certainly learned new things. I realized in some areas I actually believed those activists. But now I have been taught the truth by Stossel. I always like non-biased material and I appreciated it when he showed the two sides to cloning, even though I always agreed with the Reverend who was against it.

I give it my thumbs up. I look forward to another one of Stossel’s reports.

3

I missed the show you mentioned, but I’ve seen enough of John Stossel to big a BIG admirer of him.

4

It was a good show. I was only able to catch the last half of it, but I found it to be balanced and interesting.

5

Said that environmentalists like to point out that 1700 scientists had signed a paper saying that they were in agreement with global warming. The program pointed out that they fail to say that 7000 signed saying they did not agree.

The United States has experienced a rise in temperature of 1/2 degree F in the past 50 years. The largest increase in temperature has been in Siberia during the winter from -40 degrees up to -38 degrees, which most experts think may be an improvement.

GIVE IT TO THOSE BASTARDS, JOHN!

6

Well, as a libertarian, I have long found Stossel a refreshing voice in the media. I think I first noticed it with the special called “Sex, Drugs, and Consenting Adults” where he asked why harmless behavior among consenting adults was illegal. I had never before seen the mainstream news media actually suggest that the government has no business making drug use or prostitution illegal.

From what I saw of last night’s show, it was equally as impressive. Stossel seems to be one of the few voices on the air that try to present a different view than what we usually hear.

7

That is the same John Stossel who got slammed for asking the kids leading questions until he got the answers he wanted for that piece?

8

I feel like I’m preaching to the choir. While it’s heartening that everyone so far seems to agree with me and appreciate John Stossel’s efforts, aren’t there any dissenting voices in the crowd?

9

Odieman, my man, you beat me to the post but thanks for providing a questioning attitude. I was not aware the JS was accused of leading questions – where did you see this?

10

What I liked about the show is that he pointed out that genetic engineering is actually better than the old ways of getting what you want because you have a greater degree of control. I liked it when he pointed out that many of the fruits and vegetables we take for granted are actually the results of artificial selection that originated many years, even centuries ago. Corn as we know it did not exist until after Native Americans cross-bred different kinds of grass and grain plants, beginning thousands of years ago. I bet genetic engineering could probably have achieved the same thing in just a decade or less. And they could have inserted a natural pesticide into the DNA of the plant so it would not have to be crop-dusted! (This pesticide is not toxic to humans because of our different biology. I think they called it “B.T.” on the show…?)

11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010626/aponline181143_000.htm

Musicat asked:

12

I am a Libertarian as well and thoroughly like John Stossel’s reports…however he eluded to the idea of pesticides and hormones as being okay in our foods. While I don’t have any cites or data, I can’t help but think that adding pesticides and hormones to our foods is not good for our health and as for pesticides on land, must have negative effects on the soil and air quality around fields.

I am of the school of thought, in this case, that less is better. If they genetically engineer foods to be less pest prone and it proves to be a healthy product then I am all for it. Also, I realize that the meat industry needs to keep the animals from getting sick and also need animals that produce more meat but I am against excessive use of injections that will eventually become a part of your meatloaf. I am more than willing to pay more for meat that is as untainted as possible.

But other than that, I agreed with much of what he said and usually says in his reporting.

13

You may be right, but in the absence of proof, it is only a supposition. And this is Stossel’s point – being afraid of technology because of no more than a gut feeling is not good science, and certainly not reason enough to prohibit a substance or practice that bears such a positive outcome.

You may, of course, shop at the organic section of the supermarket. If you wish to pay more for your food, be my guest. But there are some places in the world where food of any kind is a luxury and they cannot afford that choice.

14

A reporter asking leading questions? :eek:

Quick, somebody alert the media!! Oh, wait…damn. Forget I said anything.

15

Thanks for the Washington Post link, Phartizan.

I know nothing about that situation beyond the single paragraph at the end of the article:

I doubt that any journalist is perfect, but if that is the only criticism we can find of Stossel, it doesn’t downgrade him much in my eyes.

At least he apologized. I don’t see Jeremy Rifkin doing that very often.

16

Especially since the errors did not seem to have been Stossel’s fault. From what I understand, a series of tests were contracted out, and one of the producers accidentally passed on information on a test that was never performed. Lobbying groups demanded that Stossel be fired and that the entirety of the story be retracted. I was hoping to see Stossel comment about the incident on last night’s show as an example of activists trying to silence their opposition.

As for the leading questions, it sounds more like the parents found out what the show was saying, and didn’t want to be involved. Certainly doesn’t affect my opinion of Stossel himself.

17

Musicat,

Honestly, would you rather have foods that have no chemicals rather than some of the mass produced foods with them? I mean really?

Have you ever had a tomato straight off the vine that never had chemicals to kill bugs or strawberries that had nothing added to the soil to grow it? I have and they are more tasty. And yes, I do have a family friend that has to have certified organic foods, clothing and home products because of hypersensitivity to chemicals. Some of you might think that is a bunk deal, but it’s true for her. Her husband lives in C Springs for the week doing his business and such then spends the weekends in a virtually natural environment. She occasionally comes down here to hang with her friends and family but even perfume affects her. I have seen it first hand.

I stick with the idea of “less is more” and I wish the mainstream would see that as well. I am not stating that we all forget all science but why can’t we use science to get us back to basics? Why can’t we use what we know to further nature’s abilities? I mean, why pump a cow going to slaughter with hormones when if they had more land for a cow to roam, she would yield more meat than sitting in a feed lot all day? Also, those damn feed lots stink like hell had a bad day – egads.

Oh, economics drives that seeing as their is only so much land but giving hormones to a cow that aren’t natural occuring bothers me. I would rather have a slab of buffalo than a slab of beef any day. Most buffalo ranches, right now, are on big plots of land. The meat is healthier and more tender than a cow. Elk and other game is tastier, if cooked right, than beef.

As for veggie growers, they have to continuously replace natural occurring chemicals with lab grown chemicals. Have you ever been near a crop that has just put down chemical based fertilizer? It’s a nasty chemical smell, much like cleaning your bathroom.

I am totally for advances in the best ways to grow and cultivate our foods but I am also for the idea of doing it as naturally as possible.

I must mention, I don’t keep medications in my house. I use as natural as possible cleaners in my home. I smoke and drink but other than that I do my best to live as naturally as possible. I refuse to use chemical based fertilizers in the back yard because of my dog. My cat’s litter box uses clay based litter.

In other words, I do what I can to be as kind as I can to this world. I would rather pay more for organic meats and veggies because I do believe it is kinder to our bodies and also to the air, water and soil.

I believe in Libertarianism, I also believe in being a good steward to the land…now if I could just quit smoking I would be a good steward to my lungs and the air. :wink:

18

I guess the main point in the show was saying that you can think whatever you want about cloning, genetics and chemicals but just don’t force other people to agree with you. Stossel pointed out how these nutjob activists were burning down crops and destroying land where the genetically altered food was being grown. I also remember a scene where some of them were in a supermarket and took packaged food items off the shelves, put them in a cart and wrapped the cart in tape that had biohazard symbols all over the place.

Activists have the right to say whatever they want but they don’t have the right to infringe upon the rights of others to get their point across. Especially when their beliefs are largely unfounded and potentially dangerous.

19

Smoking pumps so many uber-toxins and carcinogens into your system, so efficiently anthing else you do to live “naturally” is largely a waste of time and utterly miniscule in relation to the ferocious hammering smoking is giving your immune system and overall health.

20

Someone wanted a dissenting voice. Stossel’s a whiny jackass secretly bankrolled by the extreme libertarian right. How’s that?

I remember him ranting about the obviously Communist-inspired regulations on low-flow toilets and how it is ruining Americans’ God-given right to a water-to-turd ratio of at least five gallons. Let’s see…the water department builds a system of pipes to deliver water to your house, but has no right to regulate what you hook up to it? I say, if you want total control over your plumbing, build your own goddamned sewer system, and don’t dump your waste water anywhere I might have to smell it.

And don’t nobody start in with the argument that people with low-flow toilets just flush them more often. Stossel’s angle was not that low-flow toilets are technically a bad idea; his beef was that the government had any right at all to set standards for toilets, which is patently absurd. As long as machines are manufactured, the government cannot avoid at least minimally regulating them; it’s a natural extension of the simple act of legislating in a modern technological society.