To Be or To Do: Which Way Will You Go?

By Rich Kozlovich

Originally published June 25, 2012, updated January 18, 2016

This morning I watched the news on NBC (my wife likes them) reporting on the trial of Jerry Sandusky and his attorney's claim that they are going to appeal. Then the report made it known the authorities weren’t done with this mess, and others may be charged as more evidence of what occurred comes out. There is the head of the athletic department and a vice president at the university that have been charged - or may be charged - with lying under oath or covering up the child abuse perpetrated by Sandusky.

I know this may seem like a strange question, but does anyone see a glimmer of enlightenment over all of this?

The glimmer of enlightenment is this: There's a difference between managers and leaders. A good leader can hire a good manager, but a good manager can't hire a good leader. 

Through the course of my life I discovered that being a good leader means standing up and saying: ‘Hold it! This is all wrong and we’re going to change!’ Whether it is in government or in business that means having the willingness to be  the rock in the current, often a life long quality.   But let’s face it -  heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. Who wants to be disliked, ridiculed and rejected? 

As for the go along to get along guys who are perceived as 'good leaders': Are they in reality only ‘good managers’ who were chosen to organize the direction everyone has already decided to go? They’re easy to deal with, they're easy to get along with, they're well liked, and they would never in a million years stir up the manure. 

Take for example two arenas where this is so obvious I shouldn’t have to explain it, but most don’t get it because people believe they represent the highest standards for leadership. Military career officers and PhD’s!  Let me tell you about Col. John Boyd. (What appears below is from a site that no longer exists, but this link is just as good...maybe better.)

"Forty-Second" Boyd, the man remembered for defeating every opponent in aerial combat at the Air Force's premier dog-fighting academy in two-thirds of a minute, helped found the Fort Myer get-togethers at the end of his Air Force career”…..however this doesn’t demonstrate the “long and often painful saga of a man who, as a full colonel, went toe to toe, time after time, with a phalanx of two-and three-star generals for the good of the country, winning most of his battles and surviving long enough to help provide secretary of defense Richard Cheney the ideas needed for swift and decisive victory in the Persian Gulf War. ("Keep it simple — so that the generals will understand it," Boyd frequently told his small band of fellow guerrillas, known collectively as "The Acolytes." Boyd was…..a Pentagon "Whiz Kid"— one of the rare few who were "defined by the courts-martial and investigations they faced." He was also "the most important unknown man of his time and the most remarkable unsung hero in American military history."….. Loud and profane, Boyd's intellectual achievements were matched by his relentless guerrilla warfare against hidebound "careerists" then running the Air Force…… The tenets of this speech reflected both his spirit and values:

"One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." [Boyd] raised his hand and pointed. "If you go that way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good assignments." Then Boyd raised the other hand and pointed another direction. "Or you can go that way and you can do something — something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself. If you decide to do something, you may not get promoted and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not be a favorite of your superiors. But you won't have to compromise yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And your work might make a difference."

He paused and stared. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

You show me a lower ranking officer in the military who tells his superiors they're all wrong and proves it - and I will show you an officer who have better find another career.  Boyd "is credited for largely developing the strategy for the invasion of Iraq in the Gulf War of 1991." "In a letter to the editor of Inside the Pentagon, former Commandant of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak is quoted as saying "The Iraqi army collapsed morally and intellectually under the onslaught of American and Coalition forces. John Boyd was an architect of that victory as surely as if he'd commanded a fighter wing or a maneuver division in the desert."

The only reason Boyd ever was promoted to Colonel was because Reagan became president, but he would never be allowed to wear stars.

This pattern plays out in the universities also. Show me a graduate student who, while attempting to get his PhD. told the PhD.s evaluating him their ideas were all wet…. and worse yet …..proved it - and I will show you someone who is stuck with a Masters degree.

They both learn early on that to get along you must go along. When that happens it becomes a way of life and as they rise in the ranks they will only tolerate those just like themselves. To do otherwise would be a personal admission of failure. Eventually the ranks of “leadership” are filled with those who don’t have the courage to stand up against all odds for what is right.

Within the scientific community it has been made abundantly clear the holy grail of science isn’t ‘truth’ - its government grant money. The fraud perpetrated on the world by ‘scientists’ regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming has been exposed and now the world is aware that this has been going on for decades. The world is now aware that what appears as leadership within the scientific community is no real leadership at all - only hucksters, con artists and cowards. The only courageous leadership in science is from those that are attacked and smeared as ‘skeptics’, even to the point of being called ‘Flat Earthers’ and compared to those who perpetrated the holocaust during WWII. Those who are real leaders - those who have the courage to stand against the tide - those who are prepared to lose everything for that which is right are always called….. unreasonable.

My answer to that? I would like for someone to show me any insurmountable obstacle that was ever overcome by being reasonable!  Being unreasonable in pursuit of a noble goal takes clarity.  But the problem must be properly defined - that's what leads to clarity, which leads to understanding.  From that a vision is developed.   But a vision is valueless without courage, fortitude, and the ability to stand outside the comfort and support of the group. 

That's a view many will ridicule and being unreasonable or irrational, but I would be willing to bet the children Sandusky abused would have loved to have seen someone come forward who was courageous enough to be "unreasonable" within the universities ranks of ‘leadership’! Unfortunately there was no one - including a much beloved football coach whose legacy and reputation is now irreparably destroyed.  A coach who should have been in the forefront defending these kids. I wonder how many of that cast of characters now regret their cowardice?

Whether it's in government, military, academia or industry, this is something we need to learn, repeat, retain and practice: "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Some Resemblance to Reality

By Rich Kozlovich, Originally published February 1, 2009, updated December 30, 2015

 

Science fiction writers are an interesting lot. They do seem to have an innate ability to see farther into the future than most. They can take seemingly innocuous trends and extend the potential effects of these trends beyond the horizon. 

Forty five or so years ago I read a science fiction short story that dealt with the concept of risk mitigation.  As the story went, there was some scientist on another planet who created robots whose sole purpose was to keep people safe. Although this scientist's motives were of the highest order, his creation got away from him. Naturally, these robots had difficulty determining what exactly "safe" meant, and interpreted their programming far beyond anything he had intended or wanted. They extended risk mitigation to a computers logical extreme and stifled all activity.

They increased in number and eventually discovered the Earth. They started out quietly by creating an automobile that was called (if I remember this correctly) the Everlasting Car. Safe, efficient, cost effective wouldn’t rust (that was a big deal in the 50’s and 60’s), and they were, most importantly, very inexpensive. Soon they put all other car companies out of business. This gave them enormous capital and credibility and they soon took over more and more of mankind’s responsibilities.

There was to be no war, no dangerous jobs and no risk to mankind of any kind. Naturally everyone thought this was a great idea. Everyone was to be safe! Except the robots would be the ones to determine what constituted "safe". Since these were robots with computer brains, “safe” became extreme, and now this “great idea” wasn’t so great anymore….but it was too late. They now controlled every aspect of human life.

The state of New York has banned total release aerosol cans because some idiots blew up their houses with them. I am sorry that people do stupid things, but unfortunately that's a part of what it means to be human. It is unfortunate that homes have been destroyed and extremely unfortunate when someone is hurt. I have to ask though; over the whole of this country - in how many houses has this happened over the last 60 years? I would bet that the number is remarkably low compared to the number of aerosol cans sold.

Although I have used them I've never been a big fan of total release aerosols, but when these products are removed from the market, “for our own good”, aren't we depriving responsible people of the ability to control pests in their homes. Are they all that effective? I don’t think so, but they do have their place and people should have the choice and option to use them or not as they please.  They represent a risk, but so does everything else in our lives.  Just like the guy who was using alcohol in his apartment to control bed bugs while smoking a cigarette, setting his apartment on fire.  Stupid?  Oh yeah - but can we blame the EPA for that?  Actually I think we can!  In this case stupid was caused by desparation.  Desparation that was caused by the  EPA's eliminations of effective, inexpensive chemistry that was available to everyone. 

Risks are definable and there are charts that list risks. Approximately thirty thousand people are killed on the nation’s highways every year. Between ten and fifteen thousand children are hurt by lawn mowers each and every year. Each and every year approximately three million adolescents will contract a sexually transmitted disease and thousands drown every year. These are very high on the risk charts and yet we find it necessary to ban total release aerosol cans.

Our view of risk has been molded by misinformation through a corrupt media. We worry unendingly about theoretical risks regarding genetically modified foods, food additives, hormones in milk, electromagnetic radiation, fluoride and chlorine in our water and most importantly, pesticide residues on our fruits and vegetables. These have been shown to be extremely low on the risk charts.

Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. In reality we live longer, healthier and more satisfied fulfilling lives than ever in human history. In 1945 the world’s population amounted to two billion people, and it took thousands of years to attain that number. During the time when modern chemistry came into its own, mankind’s numbers grew at an unprecedented rate, with people living longer to boot. The greenies constantly spew out all forms of claptrap about how dangerous chemicals and modern living are; and yet if all that they claim was true; do we really believe that we would have increased the world’s population to over seven billion in less than 75 years?

Make no mistake about this. The patterns of history will repeat over and over again. Starting with the progressive movement of Teddy Roosevelt, which laid the ground work for Woodrow Wilson's (whom historians call the first Fascist president) massive government programs, which was the basis for FDR’s New Deal (same people and programs as Wilson’s with different names), to Nixon’s massive regulatory factories at EPA, OSHA, and the Wildlife Service enforcing the Endangered Species Act, we see that very same extreme computer like mentality.

We know best! Only we can protect you from yourself!

Perhaps all these government people really are robots from another planet since they claim special knowledge as to how we should live our lives.  If that's the case it seems to me it's impossible for them to be human and to have originated with the rest of us, otherwise from where did all this grand understanding and knowledge originate?  Interplanetarial aliens maybe?  Whadda ya think? 

We need to stop emoting and start thinking. That starts by reading something besides the lava flow of misinformation put out by the EPA and the green movement. I would like to recommend the book "Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals", by the American Council on Science and Health.

Do You Have An Itch For An “ISM”?

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published September 5, 2009 updated December 30, 2015

 

How many have tasted foie gras or even know what it is?

It's liver, but not just any old kind of liver - it's goose or duck liver - but not any old kind of goose or duck liver. It seems that when you force feed a migratory goose or duck species (they claim this doesn’t work on non-migratory species - who knew?) that it gets a large - really large liver - which supposedly tastes really great. Foie gras, (pronounced fwa gra) is French for “fat liver”. This is achieved through a process of force feeding that goes back to ancient Egypt. “Foie gras is described as rich, buttery, and delicate, unlike that of a regular duck or goose liver.”  And it's really expensive....really expensive.....costing up to and over $100.00 a pound depending on what you buy.

Now clearly this isn’t the kind of liver that my parents and grandparents generation doted on. That generation will go to a restaurant with a huge menu and go into rapture because liver and onions is the special the day! Of course that is usually beef liver, but they even like chicken livers as the special of the day.

I am 69 and you don't see people from my generation getting all that excited about liver..smothered in onions or any other way for that matter....why? I have always believed there must be a reason why anyone would like liver.. and I think I know what it is. They only liked liver because it was one of the few meats they could afford during the Great Drepression years. Liver, gizzards, chicken wings and pork ribs were mighty cheap back in those days, sometimes free. In those days they used to make chicken soup with chicken feet as the base for stock. That is one ugly sight!

In years gone by, average people didn’t have meat three meals a day. During the depths of the Great Depression many didn’t have meat once a week. Those old enough to remember the Little Rascals will remember an episode when Alfalfa was all excited because he was going to have meat at dinner that night. Meat was a big deal and if liver smothered in onions (the only way it could possibly be eaten) is all you can afford, and you have it enough in your youth, you might have the tendency to think the stuff is pretty great. Personally, I have always thought that anything tasting that  bad must be toxic.

Enough about that - back to foie gras! This is the liver that the gourmets go into rapture over. As it turns out the animal rights activists are enthusiastic over it also. The difference is they want to ban it because they claim the raising process is cruel. There is an awful lot of green house gas being emitted by these people over this issue.

People who buy their food at the market and have never lived or worked on a farm should have nothing to say about this or anything else farmers do. None of these things ever became an issue until there were so many people living in the cities and so few living on farms. One hundred years ago over fifty percent on the population was involved in agriculture of some sort. Two hundred years ago most of the population farmed or at least raised some of their own food because the population in the cities was relatively small. Industrialization changed all of that, especially after WWII and so did attitudes.

We must remember that this is a process of incrementalism; one step at a time. The reality is that they are against eating any part of an animal and this is just one step in the process. Today foie gras, tomorrow the goose, the next day ducks and then chickens and so on until the eating of all animal flesh is banned. At least that is their goal, but make no mistake about it…if they hadn’t chosen animal rights it would be something else.

Take the Swiss for example. The Swiss have really gone over the edge. They added an amendment to a law that requires the Swiss to recognize the dignity of all living things to include…..plants. Yes, even the “decapitation” of wildflowers at the roadside “without rational reason”, will be punished. Folks, we have to stop being so anthropomorphic. Placing human values on non human things is irrational.

What if someone starts a movement that claims plants feel pain during harvest and therefore we shouldn’t eat bread? Would that be called Doughdoughism?

Who Raises A Banner That Says: I Stand For Consensus!

By Rich Kozlovich. Originally published December 28, 2009

For a number of years I sent out an e-newsletter called Green Notes each week. I had people e-mail me saying “thank you for all the work that you do” putting together these fifty two issues. Naturally I was always flattered and I thanked them for making me feel as if it wasn’t all in vain, but there isn’t really as much work as you might think, at least for me because I would have been reading these articles and researching the information anyway. That’s where the most time is involved, so after that, it’s pretty much a snap. Perhaps what makes it all special is the desire to share this information - which is appreciated and enjoyed , or irritating depending on one’s point of view.

In most of my Green Notes issues I had a section called, “Quotes of the Week”.  As I was going through all of the quotes I couldn’t help thinking how insightful some of them were when all of a sudden I had a SHAZAM moment. Why not create a readable article out of nothing but these quotes even if they have to be paraphrased?

I am going to have to watch those SHAZAM moments! I keep forgetting I have a job that interferes with my life.  If I had known how much work this was going to turn out to be I wouldn’t have undertaken this task in the first place, but……. here it is and I hope you will enjoy it!

---

For me, pragmatism is not enough, nor is that fashionable word consensus. To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner "I stand for consensus"?

Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders - no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern - the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us . Opposing this new authoritarian collectivist green offensive is "The Battle of Our Times".

For me, the laws of physics are not subject to change by virtue of a public consensus or declarations of highly placed politicians and governmental science bureaucrats. We're under attack by a lot of alarmists. We must learn and remember that the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary .

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. I have said more than once that history never repeats itself - what happens is that people keep forgetting it . Show me someone who does not read books and I will show you someone lost in the fog of propaganda, manipulation, and the lies that pass for the news of the day. Books can tell you who you are, what you believe, and why. They always leave you changed in some fashion.

Fortunate is the person who can look back at his or her life and say, "I would do it all again, the same way.” Most of us mortals have made mistakes, sometimes too many to count. Some mistakes have to do with career. Some have to do with money. Some have to do with other poor decisions and poor choices – reconsidered, of course, with the benefit of hindsight. But the ones that cause the most regret and the most pain have to do with the treatment of other people – especially those who loved and trusted us. We finally discover the value and worth of what we once had and failed to appreciate . Let all who are here remember that we are on the stage of history, and that whatever our station may be, and whatever part we have to play, great or small, our conduct is liable to be scrutinized, not only by history, but by our own descendants.

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.  Losing liberty over a theoretical threat is the main concern here (no one has ever been killed by manmade global warming. because there is no way to distinguish manmade warming from natural warming). We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is real science does not support scares involving global warming, the banning of chemicals, vaccinations and a host of other scares, and never did. Real scientists - branded as dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end these vast and terrible hoaxes leaving catastrophes in their wake.

We keep hearing outrageous statements from the greenies claiming that modern living is killing us and they repeat things they know are false over and over again. The Bolsheviks discovered that truth does not matter so long as there is reiteration. The greenies have no difficulty whatever in countering a fact by a lie which, if repeated often enough and loudly enough, becomes accepted by the people .

It ain’t what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's the things you know for sure that just ain't so . Think about the things that have improved our lives the most over the past century – medical advances, the transportation revolution, huge increases in consumer goods, dramatic improvements in housing, the computer revolution. The people who created these things – the doers – are not popular heroes. Our heroes are the talkers who complain about the doers.

In 1900, the world supported 56 billion human life years, notes climatologist John Christy: 1.6 billion people times a 35-year average life span. Today it supports 429 billion life years: 6.5 billion people times a 66-year average life span – and they live far better than anyone in history . Then ask yourself….do I really want to abandon what we have to live in squalor and dystopia? Because that is the alternative!

Greenies don't like tidal power, it might upset the fish, you know. So: Coal, nuclear and hydroelectric are positively EVIL; windmills are no good; tidal power is no good. There's just no such thing as a happy Greenie . What is the alternative? What will make the greenies happy? Make no mistake: Living green is really about someone else micro-regulating you -- downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained .

Journalists have generally given up on seeking to understand science, but instead look for the next scientist who will say something strange so that they have a “story” . Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered , and with the internet we have discovered that the media squandered any credibility they had many years ago.

Let’s just take Global Warming scares promoted by the media. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate. As far as I can see the IPCC 'Global Temperature' is wrong. Temperature is fluctuating but it is still most places cooler than in the 1930s and 1940s.

It will take about 800 years before the water level has increased by one meter" Changes in solar irradiation have been the dominant causes of changes in climate. Volcanic eruptions can have caused some cooling events and greenhouse gases may have contributed to the increase in temperature over the last decades. However, the influence of solar variability has been the major forcing factor and will probably also remain so in the future .

Every totalitarian regime needs its defining myth. With the Nazis, it was the “Aryan” fantasy of racial purity. With the USSR, it was the dictatorship of the proletariat. With secularized, semi-pagan Western societies in historic decline, it's global warming.

Environmentalists-even mainstream environmentalists and fellow traveler business owners are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behavior and restrict economic activity. Their true plans and ambitions? Stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. They are interested in their businesses and their profits made with the help of politicians” . Take away the grant money and they will go away.

Why are economic conditions chaotic? The reason is simple. Americans no longer possess the freedom to produce the goods and services required to maintain their former standard of living. Taxation – both direct and indirect through currency inflation – runaway government regulation and government-sponsored-and-encouraged litigation have reduced the productivity of Americans below that required to maintain their way of life. This tyranny – this economic slavery – has been produced entirely by the federal and state governments of the United States .

Science has traditionally been held in high esteem. That clearly is no longer the case. What has changed? The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming? In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy , yet those who dared question the “consensus science” of the warmers were declared, skeptics and deniers such as the holocaust deniers. In short…they were called heretics.

What is the mission of the environmentalists? To spread the truth! No matter how many lies it takes. Green activists will always be outraged about something. What outrages them on any given day will depend on the emotions they are feeling on any given day . This is where I really have a problem with modern-day environmentalism; it confuses opinion with what we know to be true, and disguises what are really political agendas with environmental rhetoric . Those who talk about climate change are the same ones who occupy the tenth circle of Hell for many Americans: Politicians, the Media, Scientists, Educators, Hippies, and Showbiz types. So it’s a moral imperative to be against what they’re for .

“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.” – Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder

It’s bad enough that politicians and scientists have been drinking the Kool-Aid, what is truly amazing is how many corporate types have been imbibing and buying into these anti-business Corporate Social Responsibility scenarios. When these corporate Neville Chamberlains are ultimately forced to forfeit their salaries, bonuses and their jobs thanks to their spineless leadership and the anti-capitalism cabal that now inhabits wine and cheese bars in the District of Columbia, I hope to be around to ask this simple question: “So, how’s that hope and change working out for you ?

Pesticide use, climate change and energy production are not scientific problems that found political support; this is about eco-activists and politicians who found some scientific issue they feel can leverage them into power and control. The environment is a great way to advance a political agenda that favors central planning and an intrusive government. What better way to control someone’s property than to subordinate one’s private property rights to environmental concerns . If the congressional, administration and activist conspirators behind this massive deceit were in the private sector – peddling bogus drugs, rather than bogus science – they’d quickly become convicts. Instead of jail time, though, they’ll probably get bonus checks . It is time to clean out the climate cesspool, and bring integrity, transparency and accountability back to science, law and public policy .

There is one good thing about the lunatic "global warming" catechism now taught our youth in the mandatory government youth propaganda camps : When they are finally forced to admit that the globe has been cooling again, not warming, for the past decade, yet proceed to demand precisely the same remedies for "global cooling" (which they will cleverly dub "climate change") as they did for "global warming" -- that is to say higher electric bills, more government controls, taxes sufficient to cripple our industrial economy and generally lower our standard of living in keeping with the world socialist doctrine that America and particularly the "capitalist rich" must be "punished" and "made to sacrifice" in penitence for our former prosperity -- there is finally a decent chance they'll simply be laughed out of town .

Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The Pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism .

The EPA's muddled machinations should not come as a surprise, because the agency long has been a haven for scientifically insupportable policies perpetrated by anti-technology ideologues in career and appointed positions. It has a sordid history of incompetence, duplicity, and pandering to the most extreme factions of the environmental movement, all of which appears to be accelerating . The environmental movement has become so radical as to be an easily identified hazard to American life, and the EPA is to the green movement as Senn Fein is to the IRA, and not on my list of favorite people.

There is no dealing with the greenies. They have no command and control structure and as soon as you make a deal with one group the others will attack the deal and those who made it.  They will never be satisfied and as for those who wish to define green and adopt it as a business model and make the green movement partners of some sort - let me help you! Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that - any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color.

When you dance with the Devil you won’t call the tune, you won’t choose the dance, you won’t lead, you can’t change partners and you may not be allowed to leave the dance.

Suffice it to say the 99% of this article are quotes. I inserted some of my words for continuity. If you wish to see the names that go with the quotes, please go to Green Notes Quotes 2009.  
 

“Demagoguery Beats Data”

By Rich Kozlovich - Originally published on September 4, 2009 and updated on 10/23/15

"What is more frightening than any particular policy or ideology is the widespread habit of disregarding facts. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it this way - "Demagoguery beats data." Thomas Sowell

The pest control industry seems to be faced with the same problem of ideology over reality. We are constantly told how we have to restrict pesticide use. We are told we must find alternatives to what we are using. We are told we must adopt “least toxic” (whatever that means) pest control programs. Why? Because they claim that pesticides may affect our health and the environment adversely.  This isn’t only from the environmental activists - it's a constant refrain from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  

It costs about three hundred million dollars to bring a pesticide to market!  Are we to assume that we don’t know what all the potential effects these products may have on people and the environment? Well....actually…..yes that’s exactly what we should assume!  Remember – we’re not allowed to test people, so we don’t really know what any product will do until it's in common use, which is true of every product produced.  In pesticides – ultimately the final testing ground will be agriculture.

Because of their effectiveness baits became common place in structural pest control.   Thirty  years ago the structural pest control industry used far more liquid pesticides than we do now, and we were only using 4% of all the pesticides manufactured at the time. Four percent doesn’t make much money when the cost of testing is so high. Therefore, any pesticide manufactured must be manufactured for large scale use such as on corn, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat, soybeans, etc. or it isn’t manufactured.  If a pesticide is used in structural pest control it is because it has been used profitably elsewhere and for some time. We get it last. New technology in structural pest control is usually old technology everywhere else where pesticides are needed and used. So what must we conclude from that? These products have been used extensively for some time and the effect on people and the environment must “absolutely” be known to EPA by then.

So we must conclude they don’t care what the facts are. They apparently have made up their minds to advocate the view presented by the environmental activists and are not going to let facts stand in the way. Between the regulators, activists, universities, researchers, self serving politicians, and a compliant media they have managed to keep the public ignorant and frightened through “filtered facts” which has now given society a completely opposite view of what is actually occurring.

Their answer to any criticism about the veracity of their claims is ignored and we’re told we must adopt IPM or "green" pest control.  Neither of which can be truly defined because neither has a logical foundation. Name one thing you know for sure about IPM! !

Everybody has their own perception as to what it means, what products can be used, what techniques should be used, where and when they should be used - or if ever. This will always be debated because IPM is an “ideology, not a methodology” and "green" is nothing short neo pagan mysticism. 

I’ve been told over and over again by professional applicators they’re regularly using IPM techniques, tools and methods to protect homes, businesses and food.  I keep asking them to name one!  There are no pest control tools that are IPM tools.  There are no techniques that are IPM techniques.  There are no methods that can even remotely be defined as IPM methods.  Why?  Because IPM is an agricultural concept based on the logical foundation of threshold limits.  A certain amout of pests will cause a certain amout of damage. When that damage is large enough it justifies a pesticide application.  What's the logical foundation for IPM in structural pest control.  There is none!  If there is no logical foundation  for IPM in structural pest control - it doesn't exist - except the federal government demands we believe it exists - ergo - it exists illogically!  

If these products are so dangerous and EPA has the authority to remove products that are harmful from the market - and since they have traced the results of use of these products over the years - why don’t they do it? They clearly have the power and they certainly have the desire - why don’t they do it? It is quite simple, the facts must not support such an action.

Why are they promoting IPM to the tune of thousands of dollars a year in the form of grant money? Is it because there are no facts to support the elimination of these products and no matter how many times they change the rules (Food Quality Protection Act is one example) to make it impossible to use pesticides they still can’t find the science to support the ban of pesticides, so they attempt to do it through a back door called IPM, Deep IPM, organic or green pest control.

The public is constantly told by the media pesticides cause just all sorts of afflictions, which I will be addressing in future posts.  When it is discovered they were wrong or the facts were deliberately perverted, as in the Alar case, it's passed off as journalism. The activists jump up and down swearing it was good journalism. The media jumps up and down defending their right to say what they want to no matter where the real truth lies, no matter whose hurt, and in the Alar case, refusing to publically acknowledge their misconduct.

What are the facts regarding pesticides? There is no evidence that pesticides – used properly - have adversely affected the general health of the population! In fact, if you compared the world before modern pesticides and today we find that we are better fed and healthier than ever in this nation’s history. Only the countries who are unable or unwilling to adopt modern practices suffer the consequences of dystopia - poverty, misery, disease, squalor, hunger, starvation, suffering and early death.

There has been a great deal of talk regarding trace amounts of chemicals in our water and land - and even the trace amounts of over 200 manmade chemicals in our bodies. So what?  This must be a good thing since the advent of these products people are living longer and healthier lives. The appearance of chemicals has nothing to do with toxicity. The dose makes the poison.  If the molecular load too small cells simply will not respond to those molecules. It’s called the threshold principle which is referred to as the “no effect level”, operating “equally in the realms of atoms, cells, whole organisms and even in ecosystems”.

Still we have formally trained educated individuals with scientific degrees teaching (and being taught) in our schools and universities that manmade chemicals are the great evil and we need to go "green" or “natural” or “organic” - whatever those terms mean – and whatever new philosophical flavor of the day they adopt.

Most people have been misled into thinking that "organic" foods are healthier, taste better and that they don’t have to worry about pesticides. Nothing could be further from the truth. Note the following information by Dr. Bruce Ames.

Dr. Bruce Ames (a biochemistry professor at the University of California) pointed out in 1987 that we ingest in our diet about 1.5 grams per day of {natural} pesticides. Those foods contain 10,000 times more, by weight, of {natural} pesticides than of man-made pesticide residues. More than 90% of the pesticides in plants are produced {naturally} by the plants, which help protect them from insects, mites, nematodes, bacteria, and fungi. Those natural pesticides may make up 5% to 10% of a plant's dry weight, and nearly half of them that were tested on experimental animals were carcinogenic. Americans should therefore feel unconcerned about the harmless, infinitesimal traces of synthetic chemicals to which they may be exposed. The highly publicized traces of synthetic pesticides on fruits and vegetables worried some people so much that they began to favor `organically produced'' foods, thinking that they would not contain any pesticides. Most people are not aware that organic gardeners can legally use a great many pesticides, so long as they are not man-made. They can use nicotine sulfate, rotenone, and pyrethrum (derived from plants), or any poisons that occur naturally, such as lime, sulfur, borax, cyanide, arsenic, and fluorine.

 Apparently this must be OK because its “natural”!   Chemicals are chemicals and have chemical names. If I presented you the following menu for a Thanksgiving meal would you eat it? By the way...all of these foods are known carcinogens.

 Cream of Mushroom Soup, Carrots, Cherry Tomatoes, Celery, Mixed Roasted Nuts, Tossed Lettuce and Arugula with Basil-Mustard Vinaigrette, Roast Turkey, Bread Stuffing (with onions, celery, black pepper & mushrooms), Cranberry Sauce, Prime Rib of Beef with Parsley Sauce, Broccoli Spears, Baked Potato, Sweet Potato, Pumpkin Pie, Apple Pie, Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple, Red Wine, White Wine, Coffee, Tea., Jasmine Tea. (Source: American Council on Science and Health)

Here are the chemicals that make up this natural meal.

 Hydrazines, aniline, caffeic acid, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, caffeic acid, furan derivatives, psoralens, aflatoxin, furfural, allyl isothiocyanate, caffeic acid, estragole, methyl eugenol, heterocyclic amines, acrylamide, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural, dihydrazines, d-limonene, psoralens, quercetin glycosides, safrole,furan derivatives ,benzene, heterocyclic amines, psoralens,allyl isothiocyanate,ethyl alcohol, caffeic acid,ethyl alcohol, furfural,acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural,benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole,acetaldehyde, caffeic acid, coumarin, estragole, ethyl alcohol, methyl eugenol, quercetin glycosides, safrole,acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides,ethyl alcohol, ethyl carbamate,benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol,benzo(a)pyrene, quercetin

For those who read the chemicals listed above you will notice that some of them are repeated a number of times. I deliberately left the list that way because you are getting a multiple dose of those compounds in this meal.

Does that sound so bad now? It is unfortunate that so many in positions of authority and responsibility continue to allow filtered facts to become the conventional wisdom. More importantly, it’s impossible for any society to make intelligent long term decisions when preconceived notions are allowed to dictate what “facts” will be allowed to be presented.

Then again, facts are confusing and that certainly is the last thing the public needs - right? That  certainly is the last thing the environmentalists and their minions want. Can you imagine how that might interfere with all the scares activists are constantly presenting as eminent disasters? That in turn would foul up contributions and then the greatest disaster of them all would occur.

They would have to go out and get real jobs.

What we need is clarity and that can only be attained by making ourselves aware of the facts. Once we're prepared to follow the facts wherever they lead - then we have the truth - and truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality.  Everything has an historical foundation and structure, and everything we’re told should bear some resemblance to what we see going in on reality.  If what’s presented to us fails in either category – it’s wrong!  We just need to develop the intellectual response to explain why it’s wrong.  And the truth isn't unkind. It's just the truth!

What I find most disturbing is the unwillingness of our industry's information deliverers to properly research these issues, find out what the truth is and then stand up to these people and publish the truth.  We need to ask ourselves these questions.   Are we appeasers and enablers who will eventually become traitors to our own industry? Or are we the hunters who keep the tribe healthy?  Do we believe we’re the thin gray line that stands on the wall telling the world - no one will harm you on my watch – or are we enabling an irrational, misanthropic and morally defective green movement to destroy us from within?  Our answer should be automatic - Not on my watch! 

My Personal Motto - De Omnibus Dubitandum - Question Everything

The Power of Indefinable Words

By Rich Kozlovich

Originally published on March 8, 2009 and updated 11/2/15 

Words are powerful tools, especially when those words evoke an emotional response and yet can't properly be defined. Safe is one such word! After all, who is going to support un-safe products and practices? Everyone wants their families to be safe, and certainly everyone wants safe products.  

Well, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that there can be no margin for error? Does that mean that nothing must ever go wrong? Yet tens of thousands of people have died on our nation’s highways year after year. So it’s clear – driving isn’t safe is it? Why then are we still driving?   Why do we still sell cars?  Why are we still building and repairing highways – which are clearly “unsafe”! Every year people die from accidental electrocution.  Is electricity safe? Every year a great many children drown. Is swimming safe? 

But what about products?  Is it possible to show that any product is safe? Actually ....... NO!

You can only prove something is unsafe – to demand proof of safety is asking someone to prove a negative, a factual impossibility. We can only prove what things (or people for that matter) do, not what they don’t do.   As an example - ask someone if they're cheating on their spouse, and when they say no - ask them to prove it!   You can only prove that someone is cheating, you can in no way prove someone isn’t cheating.

Yet we are being required to show that pesticides are safe before we use them. This is irrational, it’s unscientific and the activists know it. It's called proving a negative - scientifically impossible! Unfortunately this is being done with support from many in and around our industry. Why? Because demanding everything be safe unites people in a cause that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy - not mention the sense of moral superiority it gives them.

These issues surrounding DDT demonstrate the unintended consequences of such emotional causes. Even after all the evidence has shown most of what Rachel Carson said was inaccurate, even to the extent of misrepresenting the facts - even after everything she predicted turned out to be wrong - even after all the pain and suffering that has been, and is still being caused by the ban on DDT,  people will not properly connect the ban with the disasters banning DDT caused.

There are those who will still defend the ban with fallacious arguments and demand more bans and more restrictions in the name of safety, claiming it’s "for the children"! They simply refuse to admit they were wrong, in spite of all the pain and suffering, and mostly "to" the children. Why? It isn’t simply a matter of pride either. This refusal to admit that which should be obvious to the most casual observer is being driven by a misanthropic philosophy called environmentalism.

Call it an “organic” philosophy, call it a “green” philosophy, call it a return to nature, call it being at one with the bio-sphere, or simply call it IPM - it doesn’t matter - the goal is to eliminate products that allow more people to live longer, healthier lives, and they do it with fallacious health claims about pesticides - using our own values against us.

Thomas Sowell, in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, defined logical fallacies in the following manner. “Fallacies are not simply crazy ideas. They are usually both plausible and logical – but with something missing. Their plausibility gains them political support. Only after that political support is strong enough to cause fallacious ideas to become government policies and programs are the missing of ignored factors likely to lead to “unintended consequences,” a phrase often heard in the wake of economic or social policy disasters. Another phrase often heard in the wake of these disasters is, ‘It seemed like a good idea at the time.” That is why it pays to look deeper into things that look good on the surface at the moment-

Let’s take the Fallacy of Composition. It goes like this: DDT is found in birds, ergo, DDT must have killed the birds.  Ban DDT!  Since DDT was a pesticide, and it was found in birds that died, all pesticides must kill birds.  Ban all pesticides! Pesticides are chemicals, so chemicals must kill birds.  Ban all chemicals!  Logical fallacies are long on fallacies and short on logic! 

Our industry is so hot to be green and yet we don’t seem to have a clue as to what “going green” is going to mean to society as a whole. GO GREEN! GO GREEN! is the cry, but where is this leading? The activists never explain their motives or ultimate goals, and no one seems to ask them to do so.  So, what are those goals? Let us have no doubts the elimination of pesticides is one of them.   

 

The radicals in the environmental movement claim mankind is a “virus” that needs eradication, and the moderates within the movement offer no condemnation for these misanthropes.  Why?  Because the moderates within the environmental movement claim the world is over populated to the tune of between four and five billion people…....which they want to eliminate......and they’re the moderates!   Is it any wonder they’re against pesticides, chlorine in our water, inexpensive abundant energy and every other thing that makes our lives better and longer.  So much for their claims “it's for the children”!   

Actually, it should be immaterial to intelligent, knowlegeable, insightful and compassionate people whether these activists explain their goals or not. We should be able to see what their motives and goals are by the devastation they have wrought in the rest of the world.  An argument can easily be made they’ve been responsible for more deaths than the socialist monsters of the 20th century, like Castro, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pot Pol, which history records at 100 million.   

That doesn’t even count the unnecessary afflictions, pain and suffering their policies have inflicted on so much of humanity, which history records at hundreds of millions.  Dystopia follows environmentalism like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote – a madman!   

We know environmentalism isn’t safe. So tell me - do you think environmentalism should be banned?