Thank you, John Stossel!

In My Humble Opinion
21

astro, before I go to bed…um have you ever smoked? Have you smoked for 18 years of your life? Have you ever known such an addictive substance in your life?

If you haven’t then I would ask you what do you think about the fact that I do my best in the rest of my life to live it as chemically free as possible? I know my smoking is a bad thing, I hate it. I hate those mornings when my allergies are on full alert and are only worsened (sp) by my smoking. I hate the fact I NEED this thing called nicotene. But I also appreciate the other aspects of my life, my food and lack of using other chemicals for whatever reason that the doc throws in my lap.

I may smoke but in other areas of my life I do what I can to make my world an easier world to live in. Once I can eliminate this bad habit of cigs, I will probably be the most militant ex-smoker you have ever known. I plan on quitting by the time I am 35 which is only two years away so watch out.

My habits are small, my bad habits are horrible, I admit but when it comes to the rest of my life and my health I do my best to live it as healthy as possible. If I can successfully kick this cigarette habit then you can call me one of the most militant and bitchy people when it comes to chemicals and preservatives in our foods…I don’t blame you for faulting me for my smoking but it’s not a habit that is easily given up. I hate it, I smell, I have yellow teeth (not THAT bad) and I can’t do a lot of the things I wish I could do. But don’t get on my arse for wanting to take some steps in other areas of my life to make our food healthier and better. I believe in reducing hormones and pesticides in our foods. If my smoking is a deterant to your want to have a healthier lifestyle then you need to look to your own problems before poopooing what I have to say. I admit my bad habits, but I also want to live in the best I can at this particular time in my life.

Someday I will quit my smoking and some day you will enjoy foods without chemicals, I hope.

< whatever, I am very tired and about to hit the sack. I apologize if none of that made sense…I could use a good night’s sleep at the moment! >

22

Oh and City Gent, NO, the government has no right to tell me how much damn water flows through my toilet…ever had a low flow toilet? Ever had big old turds that didn’t make it through the first flush?

My parents have those damn things and I can tell you that I have had to flush the toilet more than one time to get the turd out of the bowl or the toilet paper that hung back form the original fluch and you have to flush it again. How much water are we really saving?

Whatever, Stossel brings out points that most people don’t think about given the media’s one sided view…creating more laws that are silly and creating more laws that are NOT needed.

If you don’t like his reporting, cool I can accept that but very few reporters are like him and willing to go against the main stream media to report the other side of the story which all media should have – a separate and factual view of the other side.

< time for beddy bye, yeesh >

23

[QUOTE]
originally posted by City Gent
**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.**

Let’s see…because the government must regulate and John Stossel complains about it, he’s a whiny jackass financed by extremists. But stop & think; Stossel has a point: the problem is that people insist on using water as if it’s inexhaustible and “free,” even though many places are starting to be threatened with shortages. If Stossel had proposed for the water companies to charge for water (with rebates or other provision for the poor), and people with huge turds could dispose of them as they saw fit, would he still be a “whiny jackass”?

Oh, no, I forgot. Market-based solutions are libertarian insanity. Our Dear Leaders must impose silly counter-productive regulations, because they always know better.

24

I didn’t see the show (and it wouldn’t have mattered, since the part with the kids was edited out). But the local talk radio stations have had numerous interviews with Stossel the past couple of days, and, from Stossel’s view, he didn’t ask leading questions, he asked open-ended questions such as, “What do you know about global warming?”, “What have you learned about the environment?”, etc.

Granted, this is his word on the subject, but I’ve no reason to doubt him. Open-ended questions are SOP in journalism, as it fosters more honest answers than leading questions, and removes suspicion from the journalist.

Stossel also maintains that two months ago, when the parents were approached and the segment with the kids was shot, the parents were all for it, and thanked everyone involved from ABC and even asked for autographs, etc. Stossel says that the environmental activists got to the parents, intimidated them, and made them do an about-face on ABC’s coverage.

Those are Stossel’s allegations, and I haven’t heard counter-arguments, but I see no reason to doubt him, as much of what he alleges can be verified. There’s also the fact that openly acknowledges that he’s a reporter with a libertarian bent who set out to make a report that presented both sides of the environmental argument, and thus refuted a lot of the environmental activists’ party line propaganda. That wouldn’t make him very popular in some quarters, would it?

He also acknowledged that his earlier mistake with the pesticide report. He said he was not aware that the tests he said were made were not actually made, and that he apologized when it was brought to his attention. Given the nature of the news media to duck and cover and obfuscate in these matters, he seems to have been a stand-up guy in this matter. If that’s the only black mark against him, I’ll side with him, thanks.

25

techchik68,

TC, I hope you have had a good night’s sleep. :slight_smile:

My gut feeling is the same as yours; i.e., I would rather not add anything to my food than is necessary. But here is a quick list of how my food may be modified before I eat it. I am glad technology has provided me with:

  1. Refrigeration
  2. Preservatives
  3. Tin cans and vacuum packing
  4. Drying
  5. Insect-proof containers

Without these, much food would rot before being used and cost more to bring to the table. A fresh tomato off the vine does taste better than a canned one (I think), but when the snow flies, I’m glad to have the canned one available.

I support your campaign to use only “natural” foods (whatever that means) in your life; it’s your choice. My critereon for food selection may be different, but most importantly, in some parts of the world ANY food at an affordable price is more important than how gourmet it is.

Which brings us back to Stossel’s point – radical groups should not be making these choices for you and me from their own gut feelings. Solid scientific evidence, yes, but not personal fears of what might happen.

26

First of all, there is nothing particularly right-wing about libertarianism, and I get tired of hearing this (mostly because of the attempt at guilt by association with white supremacy). Libertarians support legalization of drugs, are generally pro-choice, support unrestricted freedom of speech, and are strongly opposed to hawkish foreign opposition…I don’t see many conservatives standing up for positions like that!! Secondly, I must say that I find it somewhat ironic that the left would have the nerve to call another “whiny”.

Strange…I don’t remember when I asked the government to treat me like a 3 year old and dictate to me how much water I must use to flush my toilets. Likewise, I fail to see the absurdity of being able to live my own life as I see fit…I dunno, perhaps I’m just misguided by worthless principles like freedom and liberty…who knows?

To get back to the OP, I didn’t get a chance to see the Friday night special, but having seen previous specials I would say that Stossel is a welcome breath of fresh air in the staleness of leftist media hegemony.

Ohh, and techchick, maybe the knowledge that there’s more additives and preservatives in the cigarettes you smoke than (it appears) in the rest of your house put together may be the knowledge you need to quit :wink: (Maybe Stossel could do a future special on the government’s rather schizophrenic policy of tobacco growth subsidies while trying to stamp out smoking?)

27

It’s worth mentioning that the varieties of tomato found in the grocery store are selected for their toughness, to resist bruising during handling. Further, they’re picked green and ripened during transportation with ethylene gas (the same natural product that makes one bad apple spoil the whole barrel). The toughness and blandness are especially noticeable during the off season when the produce has to come from further away, or from greenhouses. The varieties sold for home gardens are chosen for their taste and texture, and that’s what you’re noticing, not the lack of bugs or pesticides.

Point being, having tomatoes in the grocery store at all when it’s not summer, inferior as they are, is due to chemical engineering.

Now, as to Stossel, he seems to have made a nice living out of debunking extremists, not engaging in serious debate with the mainstream of those he’s trying to make a show about. Well, sorry, debunking extremists of either end of any spectrum is always easy and entertaining, and even fools a lot of people into thinking he’s going after the mainstream, but it ultimately doesn’t help the world much.

28

What makes any of you think that your local water and sewer system was built for free, or operates for free, or has any limitations? Isn’t it a little bizarre to suggest that the people responsible for running it should have no say in how it’s run?

29

Mercutio, here to detract from the praise fest.
A bit one sided are we, Mr. Stossel? Let’s show some extreme views, prove them wrong and laugh and point of them.

I don’t want to go back to nature, but I don’t see the need for such fiascos as killer patatoes, glow in the dark monkey and even the possibility of super babies.

Here you are again, the wishy-washy, sharing the middle of the road with armadillos and yellow lines, centrist, people pleaser. Doing the two-step, a little to the right, a little to the left. I hope this show dispels the “liberal idea” horse that people have been flogging years after even Pat Buchanan was quoted as saying it was a made up scapegoat. I think he’s still riding it, too.

You want to make my food better? FINE! If I don’t agree with you on the methods does not mean I want to hug a tree, eat some sap and go back to sharing a hut with 5 people.

"But, this will make our life better"

Will it? You claimed that these activists said that computers would take our jobs instead of making them easier. You called that “baloney”. Mmmm ::whisper:: Mr. Stosssssel, this is your wake up call.

In todays profit, profit, profit world, computers have taken our jobs. Countless assembly line jobs lost because machines never go on strike, never ask for a union, never get tired, never complain, never goof off.

You think that if fishermen got fish 3 times their size for half the price in half the time, they would still charge the same price? Why should they when there’s profit to be made?

But, this will make out life better?

I have no beef with the food. You want to made a potatoe the size of your head, fine. Test the thing to hell and make sure it ain’t killing the things that eat it or the ground it grows in.

But, the kids?

Super-Babies will make our life better? Will natural talent, creativity and hard work will be replaced by the splice of the gene? This is unnatural.

“But, people thought the heart transplant was unnatural when it was first around!”

That’s right, but we’re saving a human life. We are taking a part from a human and giving it to another human. No gene splicing, no playing SIM Earth.

Super-Babies are just a tttttaaaaaadd different, Mr. Stossel. Red hair, blue eyes, IQ of 300, oh and he’s black. Is this anything short from evolving ourselves?

Listen here, Stossel. I may not agree with you, but at least I don’t show some of the extreme views and then suggest that you should live in a house full of nothing but machines. Much like the argument of abortion clinic bombers, this does nothing but show the actions of an extreme few and get you no ground. No, thank you, Mr. 2 dimensional Stossel.

30

So, the unemployment rate must be a lot higher now than before computers, right? I mean, in the last 30 years, computers have shown up pretty much everywhere, so if they were going to take our jobs, there would be a lot fewer jobs. Or perhaps computers increased productivity and wealth in this country, and helped create far more jobs.

Actually, if this line of reasoning were at all valid, the Industrial Revolution would have been the worst disaster in the history of mankind. It wasn’t, because machines benefit society as a whole, even if they do displace workers when they are implemented.

31

The Industrial reovlution placed the workers from doing the actual work to working the machines. When machines can work on their own without the help of a human body, why would you hire the human?

32

Know why Mr Stossel got out of Consumer Reporting? Not enough money in it for him.

Seriously, from what I’ve read about what really when on with that “interview” with the kids, and what I’ve seen about his “unbiased” reporting, I’d believe he’s bankrolled by whatever cause can pay his rates. He’s sold out.

33

Well, if we had left people in the positions that computers take care of, you’d be bitching about how the “big, evil capitalists” exploit humans in such dangerous jobs!

34

Please, do not put words in my mouth. You don’t know me and you’re quite ballsy to ass.u.me.

See what I said earlier in this thread.

Bolding mine.

35

Yes, this is what I heard as well.

I missed the actual program, so I won’t comment on that. But The O’Reilly Factor had both Stossel and one of the parents of the interviewed kids on last week.

Stossel said that the parents were all there when he interviewed the kids. The parents gave consent. The parents were tickled pink with how the interview went. Some of them shook his hand, and thanked him for such a fun and great experience.

And then 2 months later, everything changed. When O’Reilly interviewed one of the parents, he never said that the interview itself was offensive. He was there during the whole interview process - no problems he could see at the time. This parent pretty much admitted that other people approached him later on (I believe he did say it was an environmental group) and told the parents of these kids what Stossel was really about. :rolleyes: It seems obvious that the environmental group that approached the parents had their own agenda, and told the parents what they though Stossel was about - doesn’t mean they were giving an unbiased or truthful account. So the parents freaked, and then decided that they didn’t want their kids interviewed. So it does look like the parents were pressured by an outside influence, all right.

Obviously, the actual interview was pretty harmless. Otherwise, why would the parents be so delighted by the whole experience, and why did it take 2 months before they changed their minds and decided that they didn’t want their kids in the show?

36

BTW, if you want proof of how Stossel questioned the kids, he kept the dailies from that session as proof.

I notice many of the criticisms levelled at him are the same kinds of ad-hominem nonsense levelled at Bush. Don’t refute what he says, but attack him instead. He’s sold out, he’s a puppet on the string of corporate interests, etc. Bush is an oil man, he’s in the pocket of the oil companies, etc. These are BORING arguments. Even if they were true, the man’s statements should stand by themselves. If the devil himself told me that 2+2=4, I’d agree with him.

37

And what have you read?

38

Like I said in my first post, the double-flush argument is irrelevant. Stossel wasn’t criticizing low-flow toilets on their technical merit, he was criticizing the government’s temerity – brazenness! – in regulating the kinds of devices that one may attach to the public sewer system. I would argue that the day the government stops regulating what can be attached to the sewer system is the day the sewer system grinds to a gooey, fragrant halt.

The government didn’t say you can’t have a full-flow toilet. It just said you can’t attach one to the PUBLIC FREAKING SEWER SYSTEM! You libertarians must live in some kind of parallel universe where all the benefits of government can be enjoyed without giving up any freedoms or rights.

The telephone lines are owned by private companies in a free market. They can, and do, regulate what you can attach to their network. Same goes for the electric and gas companies (not necessarily free markets, but they and not the government dictate what you can attach to the power grid or the gas pipes.) Sewer systems are owned by local governments. They make rules about what you can attach to the sewer system. What’s the difference?

I’d also like to point out the sanctimonious, preachy, know-it-all tone used in the second and third quotes above. Why do you libertarians all sound like that? Do you really think you’re all intellectually superior to the people who are actually out there trying to make the system work? Only those who do not dirty their hands with the particulars of implementing a workable society can afford the sneering down-the-nose crap.

39

Too bad machines can’t work on their own without the help of a human. Robots simply allow less people to do more. Just like the industrial revolution.

40

Who paid for that sewer system, Mister Smarty-Pants? YOU DID. I DID. The CITIZENS paid for it. WE paid for it. Why can something WE paid for be regulated in a manner that is NOT in our interests, or in a manner that we don’t approve of?

The “government” isn’t some big, cohesive humanistic force that comes from up above to treat us well and guide us to enlightenment, the Government is OF, FOR, and BY us. If we don’t like the way the Government is doing things, WHY can’t we dissent? What’s wrong with dissent? It’s OUR Government, and if we don’t like it, we have a RIGHT, nay, a DUTY, to change it.

Or, you can just train along, doing whatever the “government” tells you, letting them lead you and guide you, and doing whatever the fuck they tell you.

Make your choice.

–Tim