Activism Change

Humantics Foundation officers of record

Question:

<< That is another Mailboxes Etc. address. Who, really CARES, Mark???

Response:

<< That is another Mailboxes Etc. address. Who, really CARES, Mark???

The only question to ask is why are these people hiding behind a Mailboxes address. r — "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or numbered…My life is my own." "I am not a number.  I am a free man." No. 6

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – << That is another Mailboxes Etc. address. Who, really CARES, Mark??? The only question to ask is why are these people hiding behind a Mailboxes address. r

Selective asking. Why does Andrew and Mark Probert hide behind a fake e-mail Jan

Response:

<< The only question to ask is why are these people hiding behind a Mailboxes address. People use addresses like these so that when they get a package, someone can sign for it immediately.  Many businesses do it.  Celebrities do it, politicians do it, private investigators do it….lots of people do it, or places like Mailboxes, Etc. wouldn’t exist…..

Response:

** ** ** << That is another Mailboxes Etc. address. ** ** ** Who, really CARES, Mark??? ** ** ** **The only question to ask is why are these people hiding behind a Mailboxes **address. ** **r ** **Selective asking. Why does Andrew and Mark Probert hide behind a fake e-mail **address? in Probert’s case …it’s way more than "a" fake email … I know of "marla maples" "nom de guerre" "rosenthalresearcher" in just the last few months … not to mention unveiling the fact that he lied that he was never a lawyer …

Response:

HUMANTICS FOUNDATION CEO Anthony A. Zaffuto 6965 El Camino Real #105 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4101

That is another Mailboxes Etc. address.

Response:

** ** HUMANTICS FOUNDATION ** ** CEO Anthony A. Zaffuto ** 6965 El Camino Real #105 ** CARLSBAD CA 92009-4101 ** **That is another Mailboxes Etc. address. How bout you sharing the officers of ACSH’s addresses and phone #’s for us all?

Response:

HUMANTICS FOUNDATION CEO Anthony A. Zaffuto 6965 El Camino Real #105 CARLSBAD CA 92009-4101 Zaffuto, Anthony Oceanside, CA, 92054-0000 Phone: (760) 966-0083 CFO Ilena Rosenthal 858 270 0680 1380 Garnet, #444 (Mail Boxes ETC) San Diego, CA 92109  Secretary  Rozann Rob 7795 Royal Lane Dallas, TX 75230 214 369 9999 214 369 6190 214 341 1000

Response:

Susan, I fail to understand why you posted this information here.  Please circle the answer below that comes the closest to the real possible reason. 1. To prove you have a good spell check on your computer? 2.  That you support this organization? 3.  That you want to impress people here with the fact that you can find a public record? 4.  All of the above. 5.  None of the above. 6.  You just had the urge to make a post.

Response:

Hey Snooopers … how bout posting all the contact info on ACSH too …? http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/by_clear/ShowMe.html Show Me The Science ! Corporate Polluters and the ‘Junk Science’ Strategy. July 1997 The battle over the Environmental Protection Agency’s new proposed clean air standards is the latest example in a long line of similar efforts by environmental backlash groups to weaken, repeal or prevent passage of strong environmental protections.1 In the clean air debate no fewer than 12 backlash groups have weighed in with their views on the "soundness" of the EPA’s science.2 Of those groups, two were established specifically for the purpose of combating the air standards. The anti-environmental lobby has increasingly used the "junk science" criticism when faced with a new policy issue, routinely condemning what it claims is a misuse of science by environmentalists and others in public policy-making. In case after case, environmental and public health and safety protections have been challenged by anti-environmental advocates who claim that laws and regulations are not based on "sound science." A look at the anti-environmental lobby’s science experts reveals that their claims to the science high-ground are flimsy at best. A select set of scientists are called on time and again to dispute the scientific basis of environmental policy. Because of the shortage of anti-environmental scientists, many are often called on to comment on a broad range of policy issues. Many prominent anti-environmental scientists are associated with free-market, anti-regulatory think tanks. These think tanks are funded by the very corporate interests that are positioned to benefit from the success of the anti-environmental lobby’s political efforts to defeat policies that protect the environment. The Roots Of The Sound Science Backlash Publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 gave birth to more than just modern environmentalism. A second, unsavory offspring can trace its origins to the campaigns to discredit the information and ideas presented in Silent Spring. As environmentalism grew as a political force in this country, an anti-environmental movement comprised of think tanks, activist organizations, trade associations and high-priced public relations specialists grew parallel to it. E. Bruce Harrison was among the first practitioners of the "junk science" counteroffensive often employed by the anti-environmental lobby. According to John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in Toxic Sludge is Good For You, Harrison received money from the National Agricultural Chemical Association (NACA), the trade association for the nation’s pesticide companies, to devise a strategy to offset negative publicity from Carson’s book.3 Harrison created a buffer of front groups and sympathetic professionals from the scientific community to launch the counterattack against Carson and the science in her book. This model has been the basis of "junk science" attacks ever since. Harrison went on to found a consulting business specializing in "green P.R." for clients such as Clorox, Monsanto, Uniroyal Chemical, and the Global Climate Coalition. For the environmental backlash industry, "junk science" is almost by definition any science, no matter how rigorous, that justifies regulations to protect the environment and public health. "Junk science," in the view of the anti-environmentalists, is the purview of environmentalists and government scientists. "Sound science," on the other hand, is science used to challenge, defeat or reverse environmental and public health and safety rules and protections. "Sound science" is practiced by the anti-environmental lobby and their allies in the wise use movement and its supporters in the free-market, anti-regulatory trade associations, conservative policy think tanks and corporate front groups. And "sound science" attacks to counter environmental science and regulation are commonly bought and paid for by the very companies that are subject to environmental regulation. Anti-environmental advocates seem increasingly focused on establishing this polarity of "junk" vs. "sound" science in the minds of policy makers and the public. The underlying strategy appears to be the creation of "reasonable doubt" in the public debate over the need for certain laws and regulations to protect the environment. As debates over clean air and clean water regulations heat up, for example, the anti-environmental faction will call into question whether or not all the scientific facts are available to justify action (a self-serving principle, since science rarely provides absolute certainty on complex environmental phenomena until it is too late). By pointing out that environmentalists and the science they cite do not constitute an absolute answer to the problem, the anti-environmental lobby further questions whether the public or industry can afford to pay for costly regulations when the underlying science is "incomplete." One major flaw in this approach is that the anti-environmental lobby and its special interest allies can identify precious few independent scientists to back up the challenges to science-based environmental policy. The same handful of "science skeptics" are quoted over and over in news accounts of science and public policy. Similarly, a narrow set of conservative public policy organizations are repeatedly pointed to as expert sources for information in the "sound" science debate. In a response to this obvious weakness, efforts have been made in recent years by anti-environmental advocates to develop a more credible scientific base. In 1993, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was launched to help present the industry view of science-based regulations. In 1996, a project called the Environmental Policy Analysis Network (EPAN) was launched to help debunk environmental science (see Appendix A). Another effort is the publication of a directory of experts by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR). The directory is a ‘who’s who’ of "junk science" experts and covers a range of issues. However, a CLEAR analysis of this network of anti-environmental activists once again highlights the fatal flaw of this list; that many of the so-called "experts" lack the credentials to refute the mounting body of science behind environmental and health and safety standards. The "Directory of Environmental Scientists and Economists" In November, 1996, the Environmental Policy Task Force, a division of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research (see Appendix B), released a publication called the "Directory of Environmental Scientists and Economists." The introduction explained that the directory was designed to provide a listing of experts on environmental issues: The environment is too important to leave in the hands of political activists. Yet, this is precisely where the United States has left most environmental decision making in recent years. Political activists – not authentic environmental scholars, scientists and economists – have come to dominate both the headlines and Washington’s legislative agenda. Activists with little or no practical experience or scientific training are frequently cited in the national news media as "experts"- or worse, as "scientists." The result: The federal government often spends billions in taxpayer dollars regulating peoples’ lives to solve questionable environmental risks while ignoring real ones. The Environmental Policy Task Force developed this directory to ensure that journalists and policy makers alike have ready access to real environmental scientists, economists and experts. The pages that follow include some 141 individuals with expertise in such environmental disciplines as atmospheric issues, waste disposal and management, endangered species, and air pollution. The "Directory of Environmental Scientists and Economists" lists experts with a wide-range [sic] of views and expertise on environmental issues. Although the majority of these experts are either scientists or economists, other authorities on environmental issues are also included to ensure that this publication is as comprehensive as possible [emphasis added]. The directory describes most of the personnel as either "scientists," "economists," or "public policy experts." Despite the claim that the directory is intended to provide a listing of scientists and economists to counter the prevalence of environmentalist political activists posing as self-appointed experts, over half of the people listed in the directory are described not as "scientists" or "economists," but as "public policy experts" (Figure 1). The directory provides a listing of the experts in 27 environmental policy fields, from "Agricultural Issues" to "Wildlife." The majority of the "experts" listed in the directory appear in more than one field of expertise. In fact, more than half of the "public policy experts" included in the directory are listed as experts in three or more of the 27 policy fields, and 25 or them, or 28 percent of the total, are counted as experts in two fields of interest. The figures are similar for percentages of "scientists" (49 percent) and "economists" (64 percent) in the directory who serve as "experts" on three or more issues. There are two possible reasons for this tendency: One is that the "experts" in the anti-environmental lobby are a diverse crowd with multiple talents; the other is that the field of "experts" is so thin that most of them need to "specialize" in numerous policy fields in order to cover their bases. It is the second reason that is borne out of the data. For example, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ike Sugg, Wildlife and Land Use Policy Fellow, is listed as an expert in 5 different fields including animal rights, endangered … read more »

Response:

Filed under: Activist Movement

Related Posts

• Hamas wins hearts by saving lives where Arafat fails
• Quds Brigades mourn assassination of activist
• Pollution tarnishes Lake Baikal, Russia's jewel
• Episcopal Church endorses narcissism
• War in Progress - AF&O 1.16.03
• anniversaries for activists
• My last political post (for a while, anyway)
• Marlon Brando Changes Worlds
• Lets disband the anti freedom National Council of Churches!
• Anti-Christ of the green religion