John Stossel's "10 Myths/Lies"

[Qdrop]

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=124324&page=1

items of interest:
Myth No. 8 — American Families Need Two Incomes
Myth No. 7 — Money Can Buy Happiness
Myth No. 6 — Republicans Shrink the Government
Myth No. 5 — The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
Myth No. 4 — Chemicals Are Killing Us
Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad
Myth No. 2 — We're Drowning in Garbage
---------

read and discuss.



or DIE!

[Qdrop]

we talked about this one before too:

Are We Destroying Our Forests?

"Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity.

But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more forest than it cuts. "

[Qdrop]

Gas Prices Are Higher Than Ever?

"Record high gas prices," has been the refrain of many in the media this past year while talking about the price at the pump. Jay Leno even said, "They don't even put the price on the sign anymore — it just says, 'If you have to ask, you can't afford it.'"

Drivers I talked to at a New York gas station agreed. "Too high, it's scary," said one man. "It's going up and up and up and it's the most expensive it's ever been," said another woman.

But the reality is that the "record high gas prices" are a myth. The U.S. Department of Energy records show that when you adjust for inflation the price of gas is now lower than it's been for most of the twentieth century. Prices are lower now than they were 25 years ago. Yes, they price is up from the 1998 all time low of $1.19, but they are a dollar lower than they were in the early 1980s.

When I told this to people at the gas station they didn't believe me. And why should they? The media keep telling us about the record high prices — they're just not adjusting for inflation!

I asked people to compare the price of gas to bottled water or ice cream you can buy inside the gas station. Most people were sure the gas was more expensive. But they're wrong.

If you took the average price of a bottle of water, a gallon would cost nearly $7. A gallon of Haagen Dazs ice cream would set you back nearly $30 — 15 times the price of gas.

And think about how much harder it is to produce gasoline.

First, oil has to be sucked out of the ground … sometimes from deep beneath an ocean or underneath ice or from the Middle East where workers risk their lives. And just to get to the oil often means the drill may have to bend and dig sideways through as many five miles of earth. What oil companies find then has to be delivered through long pipelines or shipped in monstrously expensive ships, then converted into three different formulas of gasoline, trucked in trucks that cost more than $100,000 and then your local gas station has to spend a fortune on safety devices to make sure you don't blow yourself up.

Gas is actually a bargain, not that you'll hear that from most of the media.

[Ace42X]

The "less time" myth is actually true. Compared to the middle ages, we work longer hours, and for more days a week. There were well over a hundred "holy days" per annum way back when. Similarly, we pay a greater percentage of our income in taxes.

"Money can't buy me love" is a classic Beatles line, and is as true now as it was then. That money can't buy you happiness is self-evident, so you can hardly say the inverse is a popular misconception.

Myth #6 should be obvious. People complaining about "big government" are generally idiotic idealogues mouthing some bizarre slogan based on entirely paranoid sociological fears. To expect a government to actually act upon these fears (rather than just praying upon them, which is easier and more effective) is really quite naive.

It's only people like Valvano that don't know better.

Cancer death rates are actually declining in America.

That says more about our treatment and detection capabilities than chemicals not effecting us. Last I checked, cancer incidence was *increasing*.

And, I'd hardly say "we are knowingly polluting your drinking water a lot less than we used to" is a great comfort.

Guns *ARE* bad. End of. Anyone who isn't a dumbass yank will know this instinctively. Let's ask Cheney what he thinks about personal firearms ownership.

Myth #2 - the US isn't drowning in garbage because: 1. There's a lot of holes to stuff it in. Grand Canyon anyone? 2. There's a lot of third world countries to palm it off on.

The US (and UK, and other first-world nation's corporations) dump expired and useless medication on impoverished countries who then have to pay to have it safely incinerated. In one case, out of 7 tons of expired materials, only one card-board box-load was of any use. The rest had to go into a billion dollar incinerator, which cost more to build than the entire seven ton consignment would've cost brand new.

Old computer parts get dumped on India, where beggars salvage the carcinogenic remains in order to scrape a subsistence living.

An interesting article, but the tagline was a bit pretentious for what was essentially a quite vacuous piece of journalism.

Oh, and as for "record high gas prices" - they may be down when adjusted for inflation, but so is the minimum wage when adjusted for inflation. The fact of the matter is that when the US "adjusts for inflation" these days, they are leaving a large segment of their population behind.

[Qdrop]

That says more about our treatment and detection capabilities than chemicals not effecting us. Last I checked, cancer incidence was *increasing*.
source? i haven't heard that.



Guns *ARE* bad. End of. Anyone who isn't a dumbass yank will know this instinctively. Let's ask Cheney what he thinks about personal firearms ownership. but answer the talking points in that article. are they BS?

[fucktopgirl]

[QUOTE=QdropThe truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more forest than it cuts. "[/QUOTE]


Well,not here in canada,trees are cut like crazy.I did treepplanting for 5 years and i see how the forest can be devasted.It is not a pretty site.THere is reforestation but it take minimun 10 years for trees to mature ,so while the tree grow they dont slow their horses and still cut trees down.So there is an unbalance .

So at the rate thing are going,if nobody lighten up and look for others option ,forest will dissapear!

[Ace42X]

source? i haven't heard that.

Can't remember, someone on the news said it some time. I think it was also mentioned in The Corporation documentary.

but answer the talking points in that article. are they BS?

Not that I have the inclination (or the time, I need some beauty sleep right about now) to go into detail, a quick hit and run would suggest the following:

The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

So, the ease with which criminals can get hold of guns in face of ineffectual laws means that 'guns are bad' is a myth?!? Would suggest the exact opposite to me...

But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

Which is why they'll shoot first and ask questions later. Some jumpy old fart is reaching into his trousers? Blast him, afterall, it's him or you! Oh, it was just a wallet, guess that's the price you pay.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

Cynics would say that is because all criminals, who find it "so easy" to get hold of guns, are already packing and blasting. Hardly challenging the "guns are bad" myth...

If anything it says "Guns are as bad in the US as they are going to get without even more inane laws and cultural indoctrination."

[Qdrop]

oh Enigma will LOVE this one:

Outsourcing Is Bad for American Workers?

We've been hearing a lot lately about how American workers are suffering because companies are "outsourcing" their jobs to other countries. During the presidential campaign, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told voters they were concerned about keeping jobs here at home. And CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has made complaints about outsourcing a running theme of his nightly news program.

Dobbs' new book, "Exporting America," says the government should limit free trade and immediately outlaw outsourcing of government contracts.

"Just because of cheap labor, we're destroying our middle class. That is just stupid," Dobbs said, adding, "Being stupid is un-American."

Wait a second. It's restricting outsourcing that would be un-American and stupid.

You may not like it that someone in India takes your customer service call, but outsourcing helps the middle class by bringing lower prices and faster service. Take E-Loan, for example. It gives customers a choice of whether to get their loan paperwork processed in America in 12 days or in India in 10 days. An incredible 87 percent of customers in the United States choose the faster loan processing offered by sending their paperwork to India.

And look at clothing — lots of it is made abroad these days — and Lou Dobbs sees that as a terrible thing. "This country cannot even clothe itself. Ninety-six percent of our apparel is imported," he said.

But that's OK. We have more choices for less money. The Labor Department's price index for clothing has been going down and down over the past decade.

But still, what about all those American workers who lose their jobs to people overseas? We asked the AFL-CIO labor federation for some of their best examples of outsourcing and the first people they referred us to were Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. They both lost their jobs when a Levi's plant in Powell, Tenn., closed down two years ago and moved production to Mexico.

The Barnards say keeping their heads above water has been a struggle. Shirley told us about her frustrations, saying, "You've done something for 20 years, got up, went to work every day, and then all of a sudden you don't have any place to go and nobody needs you anymore."

Tough Business Realities

Bill Portelli, who runs the California-based company Collabnet, says outsourcing has helped him keep his company alive in the United States. He has hired programmers in India who are paid less than half what he would have to pay American programmers. "It doesn't cheat Americans out of jobs. If I hadn't hired the people in India, I would have had to lay people off," he said.

He didn't end up laying any Americans off as a result of outsourcing, because outsourcing saved Collabnet so much money the company was able to expand in America. "Basically I've created jobs in America. I built better products, created jobs, been able to raise salaries," Portelli said.

A Dartmouth study found that outsourcers actually create jobs in America at a faster rate than companies that don't outsource. The same study found that companies that outsourced abroad ended up hiring twice as many workers at home.

Allowing outsourcing creates opportunity. It's easy to see the pain of the workers who are laid off; it's harder to see the benefits of free trade, because those benefits aren't news.

It's true that in the last four years, America has lost more than 1 million jobs, but those were years when we had a recession. Look at the big picture. Since 1992, America has lost 361 million jobs, but during that same time we also gained 380 million jobs. Millions more than we lost.

That should be hopeful for people like Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. While it's true that they had to dig into savings and still worry about their long-term security, last year Shirley Barnard eventually found a new job as a secretary. The new position pays more than her old job at Levi's, and the Levi's work was harder — hot, noisy and physically difficult. She says that her new job is much easier.

Her husband and some other former co-workers are still looking for work, but she told us some of her former Levi's colleagues are now working in better jobs than they had before. "Some of them have got, really got excellent jobs that they would never have even left Levi's for if the plant hadn't closed," she said.

And what happened to that Levi's plant? It's now being converted to a college. There will be new jobs for faculty and administrative staff, and right now there are construction jobs for workers building the new campus. This won't be talked about on the evening news, but these jobs are a product of outsourcing too.

Still, people like Lou Dobbs talk about the outsourcing crisis. However, in reality outsourcing is not a crisis. The crisis will only come if we try to stop it.

[Ace42X]

RE: Cancer:

3 April 2003 | GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

[Ace42X]

You may not like it that someone in India takes your customer service call, but outsourcing helps the middle class by bringing lower prices and faster service.

Yah, so you might not like the service, it may take you 3 times as many calls (and it does) to resolve anything, and they may make costly errors, or give you poor advice, and you may not be able to understand a word they are saying, and what they are saying might be totally divorced from the realities of a problem you have *half the world away*, but it is cheaper and faster! Even though it actually isn't.

But hey, as long as the middle classes get lower prices, who cares about the minimum wagers living on rice, eh?

[Qdrop]

RE: Cancer:

3 April 2003 | GENEVA -- Cancer rates could further increase by 50% to 15 million new cases in the year 2020, according to the World Cancer Report, the most comprehensive global examination of the disease to date.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr27/en/

so it's a contrast of cancer RATES vs. cancer DEATHS?

[Ace42X]

do it's a contrast of cancer RATES vs. cancer DEATHS?

Like I said, I don't deny that cancer deaths are probably down, due to improved treatment and early diagnosis. However, as it says, rates are increasing and projected to increase further. Which hardly makes "we are exposed to more carcinogens today, and thus are more likely to suffer from cancer, etc." a myth.

[Qdrop]

Stossel's pro-privatization rant....
but i like it:

Sharing Would Make the World a Better Place?

We learn in childhood that sharing is a good thing. And it's true — in families and small groups.

But would the world be better off if we shared everything? No.

Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They're often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed. Earlier I mentioned how people litter on public lands, and think about what you share at work. The refrigerator where I work is disgusting — filled with food that's rotten. I found cottage cheese that was more than a year old. It's because it's shared property.

Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University, points out that private property rarely gets abused or degraded.

And there's an explanation for this. "When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. No one owns it. There's no incentive to take care of it. It gets abused and degraded," Roberts said.

Private property sounds selfish. We think of rich people taking advantage of other people. But it works a lot better, Roberts said.

Compare dirty public toilets to privately run toilets. They're common in Europe, and cleaner, because their owners — selfishly seeking a profit — work at keeping them clean.

Why do we have so many catastrophic forest fires? Did you know that most of them are on government land — land we share? The feds own only a third of the forests, but they have most of the forest fires. Private forests are less likely to burn, because the livelihood of "greedy" timber companies depends on having healthy trees. But the government, managing land we all share, is less careful.

Here's another example. I can throw my trash on the floor at a pro basketball game. The home team leases this space, and they're fine with people littering, because they clean it up. The price of the cleanup is included in the ticket price, and they clean it up well. At stadiums, they don't even call this litter, it's just part of the game.

Compare that to public parks or fields — the litter tends to stay here. It's the same reason people overfish the sea. The ocean is public property, shared property. So for years, fishermen took all they could. They had little incentive to make sure enough fish were left to reproduce, and the supply of fish has dropped drastically.

But good things happen when this public property is privatized. For example, private fishing quotas helped restore fisheries in the United States and New Zealand. In the 1980s, New Zealand's government gave fishermen individual fishing quotas, setting a total allowable catch for different species of fish. Then it granted each fisherman the right to take a certain percentage of that. Because the fishermen own those rights, it's private property. The government can't take it away from them. The fisherman are free to buy or sell those fishing rights, just like private property. The result: Fish populations went up.

Communal farming is similar. The Pilgrims tried shared farming when they first arrived in America. But, rather than working shared property, they faked illness. Some of them said the kids were too young to go out in the fields. The Pilgrims nearly starved to death, and ended up eating rats, dogs, horses and cats. When each was given his own land on which to grow crops, food was abundant. I wish they taught the kids that at Thanksgiving. Likewise, when Stalin and Mao collectivized their farms, their people nearly starved to death.

High school teacher Tori Haidinger runs an experiment to show her students that this is just the way people act.

Each group of students gets a covered beaker of candies they must share. She tells the kids, take as many as you want and then pass them on to the next kid. Any left over will reproduce, just like fish, because the teacher will double them. What happens?

The beakers were emptied completely, because nobody shared. Bad news if the candies were fish.

Economists call this the "Tragedy of the Commons."

When Haidinger changed the rules and gave each student, rather than a group of students, his or her own private beaker, things worked out better.

She's privatizating the beakers. People sneer at the term privatization, but this time no one overfishes. Kids are careful to leave enough in their ponds and new generations of chocolate candies are born.

One of the students understands the lesson. "If it's ours, we will care more about it," she said.

The same principle is saving elephants in Africa. In many African countries, the elephants belong to everyone. Governments have outlawed killing them, but the vast plains are too big to police. So greedy poachers kill elephants and steal their tusks.

Roberts said, "It's a nice idea to say it's wrong to kill elephants. But that method has not worked."

In Zambia, Uganda and Kenya, where elephant hunting is banned, the number of elephants has actually dropped dramatically — from 180,000 to 44,000 — in the past four decades.

But in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, local villagers have a form of ownership rights. They have the right to sell hunting licenses for about $10,000 per elephant.

And this permission to kill elephants is actually saving elephants.

"Oh, it's disgusting. But it works," Roberts said.

It works, because the villagers now say, these are our elephants. Even a former poacher now works to protect the elephants.

"The villagers have a profit motive to make sure that elephants don't get poached and killed. As a result, they take care of them. They don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs," Roberts explained.

In these countries where villagers virtually own the elephants, elephant numbers have almost tripled — from 80,000 in 1960 to about 230,000 in 2000.

So while sharing may feel warm and fuzzy, it often makes things worse.

By contrast, private ownership — whether it's public toilets or hunting and fishing licenses — makes the world better.

[ASsman]

Hooray!

[D_Raay]

John Stossel huh? Well let's see, first off as one of the mainstays on ABC’s 20/20 JS has become little more than a shill for corporate America.

JS is merely a known, proven, and grudgingly admitted liar. Second, when he talks of the ‘Liberal Media’ does he mean folk like Peter Jennings, Diane Sawyer, and Ted Koppel? Not exactly a bunch of bleeding hearts? Third, the ‘special 20/20’ had a countdown of 10 Lies, Myths, and Downright Stupidity. Problem is that on that list were lies that were not, myths long debunked, and a stupidity that was his own.

In February of 2000, on a 20/20 segment called The Food You Eat, JS made some remarkably inane and downright fraudulent claims that organic food was not only not better than regular food, but worse- laced with higher amounts of the E. coli bacteria. Now, I do not buy in to all the organic nonsense myself. But the troubling aspect of this ‘exposé’ was that JS did not even attempt to hide the fact that his information was plain wrong in some cases and nonexistent in others. One of the claims was that tests on pesticide levels on regular produce were no higher than those on organic produce. The New York Times, a few months later, exposed that Stossel declaimed that ‘fact’ while knowing that no such tests had ever been done. Later that year he championed the ‘odd’ notion that while ‘real’ tests had confirmed that dioxins were harmful to test animals this in no way meant humans were at any risk. We’s veggies, I suppose.

A JS special of historical revisionism called Greed tried to paint that trait as a virtue, from the days of Robber Barons to Bill Gates. So what if those old guys lied, cheated, stole, & bullied their way in bilking many out of millions? Never even mentioning the use of thuggery and murder that would make Joe Hill and Jimmy Hoffa look like amateurs. Quoth JS: ‘I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.’ This is a consumer advocate speaking!? I doubt Enron, Worldcom, and three years of Depression have moved JS much considering the last century or so could be so neatly warped.

[D_Raay]

American Families Need Two Incomes

I agree in principle that alot of this is ‘keeping up with the Joneses’- but the majority of 2 income homes are not rich people- but the working & poverty classes. The same argument could be made that no one need work full time. Just pitch a tent and enjoy nature.

Money Can Buy Happiness

JS shows that 2 rap stars now are more fulfilled as a preacher and philanthropist. They rail against money, yet only obviate JS’s point as they speak. It was not money that ruined their lives- but its love and pursuit. Someone made this point long before JS, no? Money can only give you more freedom in your life. If you screw up it’s your fault.

Republicans Shrink the Government

This bit was designed to show JS as ‘impartial’. Who but Republicans has EVER believed that?

The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

Well, of course the top 1% are gonna pay more, but the truer indicator of whether or not this is fair is to analyze what % of the total American wealth and income that top 1% pays. A quick check with the IRS and the Tax Foundation reveals that the top 1% pays 33.89% of the taxes (as of 2001) yet owns 38.1% of the ‘reported wealth’ and generated over 40% of the ‘reported income’. The key word is ‘reported’ for we all know that what wealthy individuals and corporations squirrel away vast sums in tax shelters legal and not. This does not even account for bad bookkeeping.

Some other interesting things. In the 1980s the top tax rates were lowered from nearly 70% to 35%. This was not a windfall? Yet the IRS reports that the top 1% averaged paying taxes on 27.5% of their ‘reported income’, while the middle class paid 28% of their reported income. JS never mentioned this, I assure you.

Another unreported factor is that the top 1% had a net worth rise of over 100% in the 1990s. That 100% figure saw only about an 18% increase in the percentage of taxes that group paid. Another point missed is that if you take away 40% of a million dollar income that taxpayer is still sitting pretty at 600k, while even an untaxed poverty level family is in the dumpster. This is a simple notion known as progressivity- one of the hallmarks of fairness in taxation.

Chemicals Are Killing Us

As proof JS defends DDT by stating that its deleterious health effects came from overuse and that many Africans could be saved from malaria if DDT were used sparingly. While this is true in regards to DDT, note that JS claimed chemicals (plural) are killing us and could only manage a single instance where this claim is only partially true. As for all the chemicals in our food, lawns, garments, etc., well- distortion is time consuming.

Guns are Bad

Well, only a minority of people agree with that in the first place. Believe it or not the NRA position is in the majority, so here’s another myth that was never a myth! Any online search for gun statistics confirms that guns are used far more often in defense than crime. And did we not know that gun laws don’t deter criminals? I knew that from my youth.

We're Drowning in Garbage

This bizarre myth no one has ever claimed. JS recycled an old 1987 floating garbage barge tale that became a national joke to inflict this upon us. Implicit in the telling, though, is that consumerism is good and recycling a plot to annoy you.

[Qdrop]

John Stossel huh? Well let's see, first off as one of the mainstays on ABC’s 20/20 JS has become little more than a shill for corporate America.
and this is based on?....

a little foundation for your house, please.


JS is merely a known, proven, and grudgingly admitted liar.
examples?


Second, when he talks of the ‘Liberal Media’ does he mean folk like Peter Jennings, Diane Sawyer, and Ted Koppel? Not exactly a bunch of bleeding hearts?
who cares?


Third, the ‘special 20/20’ had a countdown of 10 Lies, Myths, and Downright Stupidity. Problem is that on that list were lies that were not, myths long debunked, and a stupidity that was his own.
examples?


In February of 2000, on a 20/20 segment called The Food You Eat, JS made some remarkably inane and downright fraudulent claims that organic food was not only not better than regular food, but worse- laced with higher amounts of the E. coli bacteria. Now, I do not buy in to all the organic nonsense myself. But the troubling aspect of this ‘exposé’ was that JS did not even attempt to hide the fact that his information was plain wrong in some cases and nonexistent in others.
proof? source?


One of the claims was that tests on pesticide levels on regular produce were no higher than those on organic produce. The New York Times, a few months later, exposed that Stossel declaimed that ‘fact’ while knowing that no such tests had ever been done.
can i get a link to this article?


Later that year he championed the ‘odd’ notion that while ‘real’ tests had confirmed that dioxins were harmful to test animals this in no way meant humans were at any risk. We’s veggies, I suppose.
isn't one of the foundations of PETA and ALF protest that animal testing does not always accurately translate to human results?


A JS special of historical revisionism called Greed tried to paint that trait as a virtue, from the days of Robber Barons to Bill Gates. So what if those old guys lied, cheated, stole, & bullied their way in bilking many out of millions? Never even mentioning the use of thuggery and murder that would make Joe Hill and Jimmy Hoffa look like amateurs. Quoth JS: ‘I have come to believe that markets are magical and the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market.’ This is a consumer advocate speaking!? I doubt Enron, Worldcom, and three years of Depression have moved JS much considering the last century or so could be so neatly warped. opinion vs. opinion.
nothing else.

look, i certainly don't think everything John Stossel spouts is gold...
but you have to alot better than this and be far more sourced, referenced, and persuasive in your attempts, if you aim is to totally defame stossel.

so if he's a chronic liar, not to be trusted...
what about his attack on the myth that republican shrink Big Gov't?
was that a lie too?

[D_Raay]

proof? source?

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,6900,00.html

So much for reporter John Stossel's unconventional wisdom.

ABC News has announced it will issue a rare mea culpa on Friday's edition of 20/20 for a fraudulent on-air report by Stossel on the safety of organic foods.

In his "Give Me a Break" segment first aired February 8 and repeated July 7, Stossel asserted organic foods contain more pesticide residue than conventional supermarket foods, and are less safe to eat.



Stossel said his claims were based on tests commissioned by ABC News that revealed "by a small margin, more of the organic produce was contaminated than the conventional stuff." He then concluded by saying that, although the food supply is "pretty safe," organic foods may be "no better and maybe worse" for consumers trying to eat healthy.

Soon after the report first aired, the Washington, D.C., based Environmental Working Group questioned the validity of the story. The group launched its own investigation (a report titled "Give Us a Fake"), which accused the network of faking pesticide tests and debunked each of Stossel's claims.

In a July 31 letter to Westin, EWG President Kenneth Cook wrote: "I am writing to inform you or our conclusion that ABC News does not possess, and has never possessed, the test results Mr. Stossel reported. The reason is simple: [B]we have confirmed with the experts ABC hired for its organic food story that the pesticide test results in question do not exist because no such laboratory tests were ever conducted for ABC News."

----
So, let's see. You post this drivvle here from a guy who claimed to have had tests done that in actuality were never done at all and expect anyone to take his stuff seriously? Really I don't know why I spent so much time on this already. You really should research your "prized pigs" before you start posting.

[Qdrop]

So, let's see. You post this drivvle here from a guy who claimed to have had tests done that in actuality were never done at all and expect anyone to take his stuff seriously? Really I don't know why I spent so much time on this already. You really should research your "prized pigs" before you start posting.

whoa, cowboy...slow down.

you posted one example of stossel fucking up.
he likely took a very poor leap, and i'm sure he deserves criticism.

but, as you have done before...you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater....

and again, ass....Stossel ain't my prize pig....i was just reading through his site and found alot of these talking points that i thought would spur some debate.

for someone who loves to decry other's arrogance on this section, you certainly can ride the highhorse with the best of 'em.

[Qdrop]

I agree in principle that alot of this is ‘keeping up with the Joneses’- but the majority of 2 income homes are not rich people- but the working & poverty classes. The same argument could be made that no one need work full time. Just pitch a tent and enjoy nature.
but you're just sliding down the slippery slope on purpose.

no one wants to live in tent.
but there is a happy medium between tent living....and having 3 cars, a plasma television, and vacations to maui every year.
stossel is simply making the point that families can live "comfortable" lives with one income in many cases.

it may come down to an opinion of "what's comfortable?".



JS shows that 2 rap stars now are more fulfilled as a preacher and philanthropist. They rail against money, yet only obviate JS’s point as they speak. It was not money that ruined their lives- but its love and pursuit. Someone made this point long before JS, no? Money can only give you more freedom in your life. If you screw up it’s your fault.
fair enough.




This bit was designed to show JS as ‘impartial’. Who but Republicans has EVER believed that?
you oppurtunistic cynic.



Well, of course the top 1% are gonna pay more, but the truer indicator of whether or not this is fair is to analyze what % of the total American wealth and income that top 1% pays. A quick check with the IRS and the Tax Foundation reveals that the top 1% pays 33.89% of the taxes (as of 2001) yet owns 38.1% of the ‘reported wealth’ and generated over 40% of the ‘reported income’. The key word is ‘reported’ for we all know that what wealthy individuals and corporations squirrel away vast sums in tax shelters legal and not. This does not even account for bad bookkeeping.

Some other interesting things. In the 1980s the top tax rates were lowered from nearly 70% to 35%. This was not a windfall? Yet the IRS reports that the top 1% averaged paying taxes on 27.5% of their ‘reported income’, while the middle class paid 28% of their reported income. JS never mentioned this, I assure you.

Another unreported factor is that the top 1% had a net worth rise of over 100% in the 1990s. That 100% figure saw only about an 18% increase in the percentage of taxes that group paid. Another point missed is that if you take away 40% of a million dollar income that taxpayer is still sitting pretty at 600k, while even an untaxed poverty level family is in the dumpster. This is a simple notion known as progressivity- one of the hallmarks of fairness in taxation.
some valid points here....
but both sides are just shuffling numbers around.

the base argument here, really just comes down to an opinion: WHAT'S ($) "FAIR"?
there really isn't any mathmatical equation for that. that's just philosophy.


As proof JS defends DDT by stating that its deleterious health effects came from overuse and that many Africans could be saved from malaria if DDT were used sparingly. While this is true in regards to DDT, note that JS claimed chemicals (plural) are killing us and could only manage a single instance where this claim is only partially true. As for all the chemicals in our food, lawns, garments, etc., well- distortion is time consuming. yeah, only one example.
none the less.... did you find anything in error with that report?
no?
okay then.

perhaps he just should have titled it "DDT is KILLING US?" or something?


Well, only a minority of people agree with that in the first place. Believe it or not the NRA position is in the majority, so here’s another myth that was never a myth! Any online search for gun statistics confirms that guns are used far more often in defense than crime. And did we not know that gun laws don’t deter criminals? I knew that from my youth. what about the stats/points he makes in his article?
care to specifically answer them?

again, i think this article could be better titled as well....
perhaps the title should have focused more on percieved effects of gun laws.


This bizarre myth no one has ever claimed.
umm...D...i hear this claim all the fuckin time still.
the "disapearing landfill space" mantra is still alive and well.

[STANKY808]

umm...D...i hear this claim all the fuckin time still.
the "disapearing landfill space" mantra is still alive and well.
It may be a myth for them perhaps but not for the developing world...

Report slams export of "e-waste" to Asia

Discarded US computers built with toxic materials are being exported and unsafely disposed of in countries such as China and India, according to a report by watchdog groups. The study asserts that 50 to 80 per cent of electronics waste collected for recycling in the Western United States is put on container ships bound for Asia where waste handling costs are far lower and environmental rules lax


And Stossel in general is quite an ass...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=13

[EN[i]GMA]

oh Enigma will LOVE this one:

Outsourcing Is Bad for American Workers?

We've been hearing a lot lately about how American workers are suffering because companies are "outsourcing" their jobs to other countries. During the presidential campaign, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., told voters they were concerned about keeping jobs here at home. And CNN anchor Lou Dobbs has made complaints about outsourcing a running theme of his nightly news program.

Dobbs' new book, "Exporting America," says the government should limit free trade and immediately outlaw outsourcing of government contracts.

"Just because of cheap labor, we're destroying our middle class. That is just stupid," Dobbs said, adding, "Being stupid is un-American."

Wait a second. It's restricting outsourcing that would be un-American and stupid.

You may not like it that someone in India takes your customer service call, but outsourcing helps the middle class by bringing lower prices and faster service. Take E-Loan, for example. It gives customers a choice of whether to get their loan paperwork processed in America in 12 days or in India in 10 days. An incredible 87 percent of customers in the United States choose the faster loan processing offered by sending their paperwork to India.

And look at clothing — lots of it is made abroad these days — and Lou Dobbs sees that as a terrible thing. "This country cannot even clothe itself. Ninety-six percent of our apparel is imported," he said.

But that's OK. We have more choices for less money. The Labor Department's price index for clothing has been going down and down over the past decade.

But still, what about all those American workers who lose their jobs to people overseas? We asked the AFL-CIO labor federation for some of their best examples of outsourcing and the first people they referred us to were Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. They both lost their jobs when a Levi's plant in Powell, Tenn., closed down two years ago and moved production to Mexico.

The Barnards say keeping their heads above water has been a struggle. Shirley told us about her frustrations, saying, "You've done something for 20 years, got up, went to work every day, and then all of a sudden you don't have any place to go and nobody needs you anymore."

Tough Business Realities

Bill Portelli, who runs the California-based company Collabnet, says outsourcing has helped him keep his company alive in the United States. He has hired programmers in India who are paid less than half what he would have to pay American programmers. "It doesn't cheat Americans out of jobs. If I hadn't hired the people in India, I would have had to lay people off," he said.

He didn't end up laying any Americans off as a result of outsourcing, because outsourcing saved Collabnet so much money the company was able to expand in America. "Basically I've created jobs in America. I built better products, created jobs, been able to raise salaries," Portelli said.

A Dartmouth study found that outsourcers actually create jobs in America at a faster rate than companies that don't outsource. The same study found that companies that outsourced abroad ended up hiring twice as many workers at home.

Allowing outsourcing creates opportunity. It's easy to see the pain of the workers who are laid off; it's harder to see the benefits of free trade, because those benefits aren't news.

It's true that in the last four years, America has lost more than 1 million jobs, but those were years when we had a recession. Look at the big picture. Since 1992, America has lost 361 million jobs, but during that same time we also gained 380 million jobs. Millions more than we lost.

That should be hopeful for people like Shirley and Ronnie Barnard. While it's true that they had to dig into savings and still worry about their long-term security, last year Shirley Barnard eventually found a new job as a secretary. The new position pays more than her old job at Levi's, and the Levi's work was harder — hot, noisy and physically difficult. She says that her new job is much easier.

Her husband and some other former co-workers are still looking for work, but she told us some of her former Levi's colleagues are now working in better jobs than they had before. "Some of them have got, really got excellent jobs that they would never have even left Levi's for if the plant hadn't closed," she said.

And what happened to that Levi's plant? It's now being converted to a college. There will be new jobs for faculty and administrative staff, and right now there are construction jobs for workers building the new campus. This won't be talked about on the evening news, but these jobs are a product of outsourcing too.

Still, people like Lou Dobbs talk about the outsourcing crisis. However, in reality outsourcing is not a crisis. The crisis will only come if we try to stop it.

Without stirring up the natives, I would just like to note how absurd it is to think that jobs can, or should, be re-inported or kept here.

Let's think about this: We have roughly 5% unemployment. That's nearly as low its ever been in America.

Let's say, for example, that we resricted trade on clothes and produced our own.

Let's do that with say, electronics, too.

Where will find the people? Out of the 5% of unemployed people? We simply don't have the people to run our current economy, in this country.

This is of course in ignorance of the point eschewed by Ace and others that our economy itself is pernicious and should not be run the same way it is now, foreign workers or otherwise, but I really have no interest in delving into that mess again.

[D_Raay]

he likely took a very poor leap, and i'm sure he deserves criticism.
A poor leap you say? So blatantly lying is making a leap now is it?

You sound like these buffoons trying to convince us that Bush has OUR best interests at heart.

[Qdrop]

A poor leap you say? So blatantly lying is making a leap now is it?

You sound like these buffoons trying to convince us that Bush has OUR best interests at heart.

okay, he fuckin lied.
the man is consumed by ego obtained by being on a high rated primetime news slot....

how does he sleep at night?
on top of a huge pile of money....with many beautiful women.


are just gonna focus on that one point? or are will you entertain debate on the other topics?

[Ace42X]

Stossel's pro-privatization rant...

Think about shared public property, like public toilets. They're often gross. Public streets tend to get trashed.

And there's an explanation for this. "When something belongs to everyone, it belongs to no one. No one owns it. There's no incentive to take care of it. It gets abused and degraded," Roberts said.

That's one explanation. It's a bullshit explanation. Public toilets *are* owned by someone, they are owned and run (here at least) by the city council. The reason they are shit is because the council doesn't have enough money to put into them. Here, at least, they are about as bad as the "private" toilets on our "privatised" trains, and in most shops, etc. It is only the super-big chain stores that can afford to put such a premium on "customer services" and then that is only because they have put such a squeeze on smaller shops.

A much more rational theory is the "broken window theory" which has a degree of factual evidence behind it. What ACTUALLY happens is that under-funded public property can't be kept as clean or as in a good state of repair, and this leads to more and more mistreatment.

[King PSYZ]

John Stossel is inane and made it so I could no longer watch 20/20. I have watched blatent lies come from his reports on a myriad of topics for years. Sorry Q I don't have an itemized list of instances or sources but I know bullshit when I hear it.

I recall one of his "Special reports" on the food industry, which I worked in for a very long time and it was garbage. There are a lot of real dangers when it comes to eating out, and he glanced over the real dangers and risks and sensationalized the myths of resturaunt experiences.

Plus the bit about American families need two incomes is far from a joke. Most people have to work several jobs and never see their children because they need to keep an overpriced roof over their heads. Yes people with 50k + / yr jobs can live off a single income with some common sense. But a familly where someone makes under 20k needs to have at least 2 sources of income to stay afloat.

[D_Raay]

okay, he fuckin lied.
the man is consumed by ego obtained by being on a high rated primetime news slot....

how does he sleep at night?
on top of a huge pile of money....with many beautiful women.


are just gonna focus on that one point? or are will you entertain debate on the other topics?
Why would I entertain anything else?

It is not as if he passed you in the hallway and whispered "the world is flat" or something. He knowingly made a false report to millions of people in hopes of swaying an opinion under the guise of debunking a myth.
If that's not a shill there is NO such thing.

Oh and you know what is wrong with this glorious country of ours? Guys like this one may be sleeping on a pile of money... with many beautiful women.

[yeahwho]

Corporate (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101) media control and John Stossel the "19" Emmy award winning tool of Disney Corporation have given Cartre Blanche to every major crook on this planet.


Fuck John Stossel. David Letterman has more insight into current events with a simple Top 10 list.

[Qdrop]

wow, i never the knew Stossel had such a hate crowd among liberals.

interesting.

[Ace42X]

I had never heard of him, but judging from what you pasted, the guy's a prat.

[Qdrop]

I had never heard of him, but judging from what you pasted, the guy's a prat.

his mustache is spectacular though.

i really don't have any solidified view of him one way or the other.

i always enjoy media personalities who specialize in "myth busting" or "exposes" or whistleblowing in general. i think we all kinda like that kind of programming if we are into social reform.

so his little segements/specials get my viewership.

i think anyone with half a cerebrum can pick out certain comments or leaps he makes and realize he's being rather bias to say the least....but shit, who the fuck doesn't?

you can all pick out any of your favorite "justice fighter" media gods from either side of the fence, and someone else can probably make a laundry list of questionable reports of articles they have made in the past, no matter who they are.

these media pundits, be they bloggers or talking heads, aren't fucking gods. they're flawed like the rest of us...with bias, ego's, and personal agendas.

Lying about the tests on organic foods is shady. no doubt. but if you wanna pretend that that makes him completely useless...than that's your issue.

each and everyone one of you has lied, stretched the truth, or intentionally left out facts/content on a variety of your posts on this board at one time or another...for differant reasons.
in my mind, that doesn't make you useless to me.

i personally found Stossels "Stupid in America" to be very informative. Biased, selective..sure. but it brought to light alot of aspects of our US public schooling systems that are not being examined by media.

[D_Raay]

his mustache is spectacular though.

i really don't have any solidified view of him one way or the other.

i always enjoy media personalities who specialize in "myth busting" or "exposes" or whistleblowing in general. i think we all kinda like that kind of programming if we are into social reform.

so his little segements/specials get my viewership.

i think anyone with half a cerebrum can pick out certain comments or leaps he makes and realize he's being rather bias to say the least....but shit, who the fuck doesn't?

you can all pick out any of your favorite "justice fighter" media gods from either side of the fence, and someone else can probably make a laundry list of questionable reports of articles they have made in the past, no matter who they are.

these media pundits, be they bloggers or talking heads, aren't fucking gods. they're flawed like the rest of us...with bias, ego's, and personal agendas.

Lying about the tests on organic foods is shady. no doubt. but if you wanna pretend that that makes him completely useless...than that's your issue.

each and everyone one of you has lied, stretched the truth, or intentionally left out facts/content on a variety of your posts on this board at one time or another...for differant reasons.
in my mind, that doesn't make you useless to me.

i personally found Stossels "Stupid in America" to be very informative. Biased, selective..sure. but it brought to light alot of aspects of our US public schooling systems that are not being examined by media.
Again, lying to millions wantonly makes you a shill, not a maverick. And yes, I have some influences that people may find dubious, but as far as I know, none of these influences has been caught lying outright. And when they do, especially in the fashion JS was, there influence with me will be no more.

[STANKY808]

his mustache is spectacular though.

Lying about the tests on organic foods is shady. no doubt. but if you wanna pretend that that makes him completely useless...than that's your issue.



If there is a mustache meter somewhere, surely Stossel would score a ten.

However your willingness to forgive outright fabrication is rather generous. I would like to know how you felt in the past regarding journalists such as Jayson Blair that have caused huge controversies for not lying but stealing others work?

And didn't someone at CBS loose their job over some Bush National Guard documents/forgeries?

Personally, I think any journalist caught lying or stealing in the performance of their job should be fired.

And once again - Stossel is an ass.

[Ace42X]

i always enjoy media personalities who specialize in "myth busting" or "exposes" or whistleblowing in general. i think we all kinda like that kind of programming if we are into social reform.

Should get a hold of Private Eye - that's how it SHOULD be done. And yes, their reporting if far from perfect (as the letters page should indicate) but it is a completely different world from the sort of soundbite media that passes as "informative journalism" over there.

Of course Private Eye isn't going to be particularly interesting to non-English people. Only a limited section of it is of International concern. Still worth a read though. Ignore the "funny" pages in the middle though, they are just lame.