August 04, 2004

• it'd be nicer if thinktanks like this were required, as part of their non-profit status, to fully disclose what particular axe they are grinding, and who's paying them to grind it. (in something other than tiny legal print hidden on an obscure part of the site, of course. like, on the front page, above the "fold", if there is such a thing on a website.) for more fun, exploring deep links from the stuff in the FPP i found my way to the earth liberation front website. those people are friggin' nutjobs too. they want to end damage to the environment, so they burn down a storage warehouse to protest the fact that some forklifts used inside it were extra-polluting. and... um... burning down a strage warehouse (probably full of various chemicals) is less polluting than some exhaust fumes? they try to make damaging the earth too expensive for people to handle. wonder if they ever thought about just boycotting companies with irresponsible ecological plans. that way they can be something other than a stupid shadow group of loosely organized "cells", all trying to blow things up without getting caught and sent to jail. post-9/11, that kind of a group isn't looked on too fondly in this country. these people make it easier - much, much easier - for groups like the CCF to point at any eco-activist and paint them all as nutjobs. thanks, ELF (and ALF too, for that matter), for making everyone else's efforts to take care of the planet that much harder. (major derail: i know a girl who told me she regularly contributes money to both PETA and ALF. if she'd just said PETA i could have remained friends with her. but openly being happy about her role in funding terrorist activities in the US? i'm not down with that. that's a hell of a lot more solid link than the drug czar's attempts to convince us that buying weed means the terrorists win. if you want to change things, blowing shit up and burning down buildings is not the way to go about it. we're lucky enough in this country to be able to vote for a better world, both with our ballots and with our dollars. throwing that freedom away in favor of random acts of violence and stupidity is asinine.)
• From ActivistCash.com: "Greenpeace itself (as is the case with a variety of anti-biotech activist groups) is heavily invested in the organic foods industry." Oh no! That's shocking, who would ever have thought! Now if you want to dis Greenpeace for some of the dumb campaigns they've had, that's fine, but this is just silly. This is like outing a recycling advocacy group for being invested in sustainable forestry.
• If you go to the "about us" on their website it says they are funded by reseraunts, which is enough to tell someone that they obviously have an agenda, so I don't see the Fox connection all that interesting. There are several sites out there such as, TeachFree.org, which claims to "provide preschool through 12th grade educators with high-quality educational materials that supplement the curriculum," and zip4tweens which is "designed to help tween girls (about 8 to 12 years old) see the value of eating smart and being physically active" and tries really hard to be "hip." However, both are funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and both push eating beef. Over on slashdot there are stories all the time about "thinktanks" that come up with anti-Linux and anti-open source but are heavilly funded by Microsoft (even to the point where someone from one of these "thinktanks" wrote a book claiming that Linux was stolen from another operating system, Minux, even though the creator of Minux has repeatedly said that Linux doesn't take anything from Minux). So basically, we have to keep our eyes open for everything. I once had to give a student a poor grade on a paper because her primary source was from a conspiracy web site that claimed that Walt Disney was a member of the Illuminati, into snuff porn and the only reason Disney made Bambi into a cartoon was becasue the creator of Bambi was a pornographer.
• I bet you're on that website now jccalhoun, as part of the cover-up brigade. You goddam Illumanti bastard.
• jb: It means that greenpeace has a vested interest in the organic food debate, and thus loses credibility. It's kind of the same thing CCF is being accused of for being funded by food producers. Read some of the info on the CCF site. I did, and it opened my eyes to some of these organizations. I've always had a few problems with MADD, for instance, (they are primarily an anti-alcohol lobby group) and now I see that I'm not the only one.
• That's true rocket88, but to be honest, I would rather condemn Greenpeace for bad science and pandering to the big-eyed animal loving crowd, than for their investment choices. They began as advocates first, investers second (as opposed to this website) - and you couldn't expect them to invest in oil, after all. Of course, organic food is more costly and less profitable, so if they were just trying to make money, there are many better choices.
• Of the top ten trends I'm royally sick of, fake grass roots organizations are WAY up there.
• I might be even more sick of the term for fake grass roots organizations: astroturf organizations. However, I think that we simply need to be aware that NOTHING is as simple as it appears and that anyt organization, no matter how benign, has its own agenda. Don't take ANYTHING at face value. I am sceptical of nearly every "finding" that gets reported on the nightly news.
• From the Disinfo.com site.By distorting the truth, they bash Earth First!, the Center for Science, Greenpeace, Adbusters, PETA, Bill Maher, Center for Food Safety, United Poultry Concerns, Farm Sanctuary, Ben & Jerrys, Martin Sheen, and many more organizations, foundations, and supporters. And: The Center for Consumer Freedom even calls some of these groups, such as PETA; 'terrorists'. BWAHAHAHAHA! We don't need to "distort the truth" in order to "bash" the lunatic fringe. EarthFirst, PETA, etc, are plenty distorted to begin with -- and it's a damn good thing that there are organizations such as the Center For Consumer Freedom to counter the scale in favor of freedom and truth. And you're damn right that some of these groups - including PETA - can rightly be called "terrorists."
• I have as much antipathy for tree-spiking groups as the next person who knows anything about it (I think), but can you honestly say that Martin Sheen = Earth First? Mock Adbusters' earnestness as much as you like (please), but they don't actively kill people. BIG difference, and if these and other organisations can't or worse won't recognise that pretty fucking obvious and fundamental difference, then we might as well be speaking different languages for all the likelihood we'll be able to communicate meaningfully. I don't automatically dismiss groups (activist or otherwise) for financially investing in causes they support. That Greenpeace invests in organic and environmentally friendly product lines and services makes perfect sense -- if no one else fills that niche, you do it since you keep talking about it. As long as you're upfront about how and why and how much, all the better because you are putting your money where your mouth is.
• What ilyadeux said. Every word.
• If you blindly support and believe in your favourite activist group(s), then I can understand your opposition to the CCF. But if you like to make informed decisions, then I think CCF provides a valuable service by countering the pseudo-science, spin, and outright lies of some of these orgs. Granted, they have their own agenda, and are probably matching misleading facts with misleading facts. But at least it stimulates us all (hopefully) to dig deeper and make our own choices.