Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (340852)	1/9/2003 3:21:26 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Their main goal is not to divide America. Their main goal is to preserve the planet for everyone. You may disagree with how they wish to do that, but their aims are, for the most part, very selfless. I am sure your overstatements come from frustration, but the environmental movement has done much for America. The Silent Spring was reversed. Many of America's birds, and especially many of our raptors, have been saved because of environmentalists. Like ALL groups (including pro-business, pro-logging groups) they go too far at times. Everyone does. Greedy environmentalists? Now there is an oxymoron, I think. Although I would agree that some (and only some) are unbending and narrow and unrealistic- but that's only fair, since they simply match the same kinds of folks on the other side of the equation. The un-American thing is a rather low and totally inapt red herring in your mix, imo. You don't need to call people you don't agree with Un-American, and, in fact, it is likely to make people who do not think the way you do discount everything you say. If you want to preach to the choir of those who think exactly the way you do, by all means carry on. But if you want to reach anyone else, I'd suggest you leave out the Un-American baggage.

To: Neeka who wrote (340852)	1/9/2003 4:09:16 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

M, here's a real environmentalist. He puts the science of environmental studies ahead of his marxist admiring closed minded former group. Check out this article from the trenches. And note Greenpeace's inability to create an environment of scholarly study coupled with free speech. By the way, I bought his book a while ago, be glad to let you borrow it. It's pretty good. He's also a nice guy who will answer questions via email rather quickly. October 15, 2001 DO I HEAR JACKBOOTS? greenspirit.com I am sitting in my office in Vancouver, Canada after Greenpeace activists in Paris successfully prevented me from speaking via videoconference to 400 delegates of the European Seed Association. The Greenpeacers chained themselves to the seats in the Cine Cite Bercy auditorium and threatened to shout down the speakers. The conference organizers decided to retreat to the Sofitel Hotel where many of them were staying. The auditorium is in a very important building and they did not want their conference to be associated with an incident there. As the Sofitel does not have videoconferencing capability my keynote presentation was cancelled. When I helped to create Greenpeace from a church basement in Vancouver in 1971 I had no idea that I would spend the next 15 years as an international director and leader of many Greenpeace campaigns. I also had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people who wish to express their views in a civilized forum. And I could never have guessed that my former colleague and then teen-age founder of Greenpeace France, Remi Parmentier, would be the one issuing the orders to silence me. Over the years Remi has risen to the title of Political Director for Greenpeace International. (Remi is so political that when Francois Mitterand led the socialists to power in France he suddenly became a defender of French nuclear testing in the South Pacific). He has fought tirelessly against the reprocessing of nuclear waste, a campaign that I have some sympathy for. He has also directed the effort to prevent deep-sea disposal of harmless oil storage platforms in the Atlantic Ocean. This has resulted in hundreds of millions wasted for no good purpose. I imagine his intentions were good even though his priorities were misguided. But even if his intentions are good, he and his chain-gang have no right to deny freedom of assembly and freedom of speech by free people in a democracy. The issue, in this case, is the application of biotechnology to agriculture, genetic modification in particular. The conference in Paris was the coming together of delegates from seed companies, biotechnology companies, government agencies involved in regulation etc. from across Europe. The purpose of their gathering was to discuss the role of biotechnology in the future of agriculture, surely a topic covered by the rules of free speech. As a long-time leader of Greenpeace in its formative years, and someone who supports using biotechnology for the good of human welfare and the environment, I had been invited to give a presentation via videoconference from Vancouver. I would have told the assembled that the accusations of Frankenstein food and killer tomatoes are as much a fantasy as the Hollywood movies they are borrowed from. I would have argued that if putting a daffodil gene in rice can prevent half a million children from blindness each year then we should move forward carefully to develop the Golden Rice. I would have told them that Greenpeace policy on genetics lacks any respect for logic or science. A few days ago the European Commission released the results of 81 scientific studies on genetically modified organisms conducted by over 400 research teams at a cost of US$65 million. The studies, which covered all areas of concern, have "not shown any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding. Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods." (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/quality-of-life/gmo/index.html). Clearly my former Greenpeace colleagues are either not reading the morning paper or simply don’t care about the truth. And they choose to forcibly silence those of us who do care about the truth. In response to Greenpeace’s scandalous attacks on the promising development of Golden Rice, one of its inventors, Dr. Ingo Potrykus, accused Greenpeace of "crimes against humanity". I agree with him. But how can we fight back without resorting to crimes of our own? What if 100 research scientists walked into a Greenpeace International meeting, chained themselves to the place, then called the media and stated their demands? Among those demands would be a promise not to prevent people from free assembly and free speech. What if those same scientists were to hang huge banners reading "Greenpeace is Wrong about Biotechnology", "Fight Anthrax, Not Corn", Millions of Children Condemned to Blindness by Greenpeace", "Stop Greenpeace Lies" etc. I would be happy to help organize such an event. Patrick Moore, Ph.D. (Ecology) Co-Founder of Greenpeace, President of Greenspirit The Greenpeace France media release on this action can be viewed at: greenpeace.fr