|Biography Articles Advise & Dissent Books Book Him! Search Contact Home|
Hate that Makes You Happy
Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation, or creed.
Hurricane Katrina Hate
[These were responses to a piece I wrote on media hysteria after Hurricane Katrina struck, in which I pointed out that there were just a handful of killings and no confirmed rapes despite horrific media tales saying otherwise. Apparently people feel that just as in the American criminal justice system every defendant deserves a lawyer, every idiocy or malfeasance on the part of the media should be defended as well.]
Woe Unto Those Who Criticize the Goddess Oprah!
Mr [sic] Fumento,
I've read your opinion in Saturday's paper with you pointing out the Oprah’s special [Sic, he means Oprah Winfrey’s special broadcast from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck] and others. [Sic, he means, that I noted that not only Oprah but others spread misinformation as to the extent of the catastrophe.]
It seems to me that you have focused your blame on Oprah's special all the while that CNN is STILL covering it.
That Mr. Fumento is perilous....
Dear Mr. Williams:
I have seen no evidence that CNN, whom I severely criticized, is still engaging in misinformation regarding New Orleans or any of the fallout from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Meanwhile it remains that Oprah provided a forum for Mayor Ray Nagin to falsely claim, "They have people standing out there, have been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people." She provided a forum for then-Police Chief Eddie Compass to falsely claim "little babies [are] getting raped." And she herself falsely attested that in the Superdome "gangs banded together and had more ammunition, at times, than the police."
It was only for space reasons that I didn’t note that this is the same Oprah Winfrey who announced on her show in 1987: “Research studies now project that one in five – listen to me, hard to believe – one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years. That’s by 1990. One in five. It is no longer just a gay disease. Believe me.” And remember this is the same Oprah Winfrey who introduced us to Dr. Phil, the fat fake who has sold millions of diet books.
I wrote in my piece that Oprah is especially capable of damage because her fans are so loyal and so gullible. Thanks for helping to make my point.
No Doubts, Despite No Evidence
Subj: Your “Media Lied; People Died” Article
I read your article this morning and was apalled [sic] at what I read. Most disturbing to me was the presumption that if something wasn't "confirmed", then it didn't happen. While I have no doubt that press reports are not 100% accurate, and that sensationalism is sometimes the rule of the day, I don't believe that entire reports should be dismissed on a whim. What happened in New Orleans was a huge tragedy, and I have no doubt that people were murdered, women raped, and that gangs didn't suddenly become law abiding citizens. Human nature is not a kindly grandmother; it is just as often base and ruthless.
At the crux of this rant, for lack of a better word [Actually, “rant” works just fine], is that I believe more sensitivity needs to be shown to the victims of the disaster; and that dismissing all reports as nonsense irrevocably damages (even further) the lives of those who suffered further brutalization or humiliation once the hurricane was over.
I really don't care about who is "to blame". The reality of the situation is that many were harmed. Please don't sweep it under the rug.
Dear Mr. Manno:
I read your letter this morning and was appalled at what I read. As the very title of my piece attests, the hysteria-generating false reports led directly to deaths by preventing rescuers from doing their jobs. Why is it you feel justified in ignoring that side of the equation? I said about 1,000 people died from Katrina in the entire State of Louisiana. Granted, that’s rather less than the 40,000 figure given for New Orleans alone but it hardly contradicts the assertion that many were harmed. Nor does it contradict the evidence that they weren’t harmed in the way the media originally claimed. The false reports were not dismissed “on a whim,” nor simply because they weren’t confirmed. Numerous reporters and those who had been involved in rescue efforts made affirmative efforts to track down the reports and found repeatedly that they were nothing more than will o’ the wisps, urban legends, friend-of-a-friend stories. When there are supposed to be 30-40 bodies stacked up in a cooler and instead there are none, that’s considered fairly strong evidence – by most of us, at least. Finally, I find it interesting that despite the tremendous effort to track these rumors down to no avail, you “have no doubt” they were true anyway. I’m afraid that under the circumstances I’ll have to go with good investigative reporting over your alleged ESP.
No Intelligence Here; Move Along
Hey mister journalist. I'm sure glad you cleared up all that nonsense about the killings and rapes in New Orleans.
by [sic] the way, did you watch this CNN report?
[URL for video showing four mutilated corpses omitted.]
Nope, nothin' to see here, move along folks.
Well, ya got me cold mister banker. Just which claim did that video support? That Editor & Publisher was correct in predicting as many as 40,000 dead? You’re still 39, 996 shy. That CNN’s Paula Zahn spoke accurately of "bands of rapists, going block to block"? That Geraldo Rivera was right in saying there were rapes and dead babies? Or that since-resigned Police Chief accurately told Oprah Winfrey that "little babies [are] getting raped"? Look again at the video. See any rape victims or dead little babies, or were you just fantasizing?
I Agree with Whats-His-Face
Your recent article [refuting a connection between global warming and hurricanes] stated: "Nevertheless, MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel IS a scientist and stirred up a Category Five controversy with his recent letter in Nature claiming there’s no trend in the frequency of hurricanes but “future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone [hurricane] destructive potential.”
Actually Emanuel said [170 words omitted.]
I read Enamuel's [sic] article and can't see how [professor of atmospheric science William] Gray can make such an extreme comment. To support Gray, one has to assume that Emmauel [sic] made fairly extreme assumptions in his study, but Emmauel [sic] stated . . . [94 words omitted.]
Dear Dr. Haines:
Insofar as you can’t even get the spelling of Kerry Emanuel’s name correct, having written it three ways in a fairly short e-mail, I see you’re not particularly good with specifics and can understand why you’re having such problems. Fortunately, they’re not mine.
The spelling errors do not absolve you from correcting the scientific mischaracterizations in your article.
Dr. [omitted] Haines
Dear Dr. Haines:
Your inability to comprehend something does not turn it into a mischaracterization any more than Dr. Emanuel is at fault for your repeatedly misspelling his name in a marvelous variety of ways.
Arrogance Becomes You
There is a good answer to that question:
[He doesn’t state what “question” he has in mind, but is responding to a column I wrote about the non-disaster of Chernobyl that ends up concluding we need to move forward with nuclear power.]
1) Potential disaster
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
1. Somehow you managed to miss that my piece was all about the “greatest nuclear disaster ever” not being a disaster at all. It killed fewer people than die of fossil fuels in this country each year if you include black lung in miners. You also missed my explanation that the new technology pebble reactor plants cannot even cause serious accidents, much less any kind of “disaster.”
2. Yucca Mountain
3. That’s the same game you greens play with fossil fuels, saying that to calculate the real costs we have to factor all the deaths and disease caused by ozone and particulate matter. Not that there’s any evidence that a single person has actually died in this way. Somehow, you always make the books come out so that the only “practical” sources of energy are the most impractical of all, solar and wind. I don’t buy it. Watch as the America people also continue to not buy it.
Your arrogance is unbecoming.
Yes, Mr. Goldberg, facts are arrogant things.
Solar Energy Meets Cold Fusion
Solar works. Michael Fumento has it wrong.
Nuclear power plants produce a poison that cannot be rendered safe for thousands of years, costing billions to safeguard long after the poison has stopped making electricity. A nuclear power plant killed "only" 4000 people? Oh goody! Not much worse than 9/11, over which we have fought two wars!
But hey -- my solar roof has never killed anyone, nor is it likely to do so. Wonder which technology is more sensible? Its [sic] a no brainer [sic], nuclear power is a poor technology. We need to forget it for good. [165 words omitted, in which he claims that his solar panels actually produce enough power to meet his needs and even those of his neighbors.]
Roger H. Gray
Dear Mr. Gray:
Gee, when I read my piece it says that the worst nuclear accident in history killed 409 people, not 4,000. When I read it, it says that the additional 4,000 from latent cancers caused by escaped radiation is nothing more than an estimate and is one that is not being borne out by epidemiological studies. I’m sure your newspaper must have completely rewritten my column, that you would never prevaricate. I also think it’s just wonderful that you have solar panels that don’t exist, because none in existence can do what you claim for yours unless your entire power usage comprises a quick lukewarm shower and a single light with a 25-watt bulb. Fact is, to rely on REAL solar panels (not YOUR solar panels) to provide the nation would require essentially paving over half the country with them. I think you’re going to have a lot of trouble convincing the rest of us to go along with such a scheme. Some of us don’t get our kicks but looking out over an endless sea of panels. But don’t let me stop you from enjoying those one-minute goose-bumpy showers!
[104 words omitted.]
You don't have to believe that it is so, but my system is what it is and does what I say it does. You can no more deny it out of existance [sic] than you could decline to except [sic] the effects of gravity. I fail to see why you think our installation does not do what we say it does. You are welcome to see it any time. In any case. [sic] the more people that watch my electric meter running backward all day, the fewer see any sense in centralized generation, whatever the fuel source.
[77 words omitted.]
What a poor frightened little man, to respond with such anger and ignorance.
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is your lucky day because you’re going to learn what logic is! A) No solar panel invented can convert sunlight to energy as efficiently as Mr. Gray claims his does, assuming his house isn’t seven feet high and as long and wide as a football field; therefore B) Mr. Gray’s claims are false. I hope you had as much fun with that as I did. On the other hand, if you’re not knowingly making false claims then you suffer from psychosis and therefore are hardly in position to be rendering psychological diagnoses by e-mail.
[Mi amigo Jaime Arbona did the math for me on this. At midday, when and if the sun is right above you, on a clear day with no clouds, each square meter of earth (or roof, in this case) gets about 1 kilowatt (kw) of power or 1 kilowatt-hour of energy. Present commercial solar cell technology is about 15% efficient at most, so we can use as electricity only about 0.15 kilowatts per square meter. This doesn't take into account that this is DC power and it must be converted to AC, meaning more lost energy. A modern medium-sized home needs at least 5 kilowatts of power available at any time to fire up the electric range, air conditioning unit, refrigerator, and assorted light bulbs. (Actually it needs about 10 kilowatts; I'm being very conservative.) That means to produce 5kw (at 0.15 kw/sq. meter) you'd need 33.3 square meters (358 square feet) of solar panels. What happens when it's not midday, or it's cloudy, or the panels are dirty (scientists refer to this as the "bird poop effect") is another thing. You'll need at least five times that area to compensate. In order to watch his electric meter running backward all day, he would need to turn everything off or specially rig his meter in a way in which the authorities might not approve.]
Global Warming DOES Create Wind!
You might wind up eating your words, but luckily for you, not soon.
I've been reading the various sides of the scientific debate over global warming and hurricane intensity and/or frequency. I believe it would be reasonable to say that there IS a real debate, with the traditionalists denying any possibility of a linkage but a small and growing number of other scientists presenting peer reviewed papers suggesting such a linkage from multiple lines of evidence or models or theory.
[8481 words of locally warmed air omitted.]
Before that, scientists were being cited by "conservative columnists" to show that tobacco wasn't really linked to cancer.
[42 more words gone up in smoke.]
I wonder if you really read these kind of notes and rethink? Are there any conservtives [sic] of the classical sense anymore?
Your wrote: “Before that, scientists were being cited by ‘conservative columnists’ to show that tobacco wasn’t really linked to cancer.” Can you provide a single example of that, or must I assume you fabricated this linchpin to your argument?
Alas, no. It's not a fabrication, I *did* read that, but it was in newsprint a couple of decade [sic] ago, so it would take a lot of physical research to find it. Or money to subscribe to a service perhaps. You may have better sources to easily find it yourself, with older newspaper archives at your fingertips as a published columnist?
[142 words of windom omitted.]
You failed. Go away.
Jar! Those Darned Viking Hummers!
Oh, wise conservative one, you are indeed correct that tar sands will become economically feasible, we have 500 years reserve left, and the all-knowing free market balances all things out.
I would note in passing that with 3 billion Chinese and Indians driving Hummers, the entire earth land mass will become subtropical [the reference is to global warming], obviating the need for heating fuel. Of course, when that blissful day arrives, we’ll probably have to burn through a fortune in fossil fuels on air conditioning and irrigation (tow what’s left of icebergs to L.A!), and another fortune moving inland, when most of Florida and the coastal cities of the north-east [sic] are 20 feet under water. (You know, New York and Washington under water really _is_ bad for business).
But hey, isn't the human free market just an extention [sic] of random chaos that’s occured [sic] in nature for millenia [sic] anyway? Guzzle away, indeed.
Geologically-perspective'd progressive, over and out.
Dear Mr. Marangakis:
I’m sorry I failed to solve all the potential and actual problems of the world in a 680-world piece. I’ll try harder next time. I addressed the issue of our allegedly running out of oil and you seem to concede I did a good job. Thank you. As for the random chaos of nature, it hasn’t been going on for millennia; it’s been going on since the earth was born. Included in that chaos has been a perpetual waxing and waning of global temperatures long before carbon dioxide buildup could possibly have played a role. (Or just how much CO2 did those Viking sails pump out during the great medieval warming period?) But why blame nature when man is so very handy?
First in His Class in Plagiarism
You got the general principle right in your recent TCS article. A few details were amiss and/or missing.
Oil shale is a geologic formation that is very common in the US. It's also called kerogen. Oil sands are also called tar sands. This is a geologic formation that is very common in Alberta Canada and also in Venezuela. Extraction costs are estimated at approximately $11 per barrel. There are concerns about the availability of sufficient water to enable large scale extraction using current methods.
Another alternative you might be interested in is coal conversion [rest of paragraph omitted for being utterly irrelevant.]
Both these and other alternative energy systems form something of a long-term price ceiling for petroleum. When the persistent price exceeds the price ceiling, we'll switch. In fact, we've already started to.
Dear Mr. Lucas:
What kind of a person gets his jollies regurgitating other people’s writings? With the exception of the middle paragraph, which has no place being discussed in a short piece on oil sands, everything you wrote was in my piece. Oil shale being in the U.S., oil sands deposits in Alberta and Venezuela, extraction costs of approximately $11 – it’s all in there. Even the two hyperlinks you provide in the first paragraph are in my piece. Were I a baby bird I might enjoy having something regurgitated in my face, but as it happens I’m not and I don’t.
Yes, Environmentalists Really Do Hate Affordable Energy
Dear Mr. Fumento,
I'm surprised that your editors let your draft go into the public realm. I come from shale country, and was simply amazed at the naiveté of your article.
Michael- don't you love it when you read a pro-nuclear puff piece and you do a word search and the words "radioactivity" or "plutonium 239" or "accident" or "costs" never appear?
Or don't you love it when you read a pro-wind puff piece and the words "intermittency" and "transmission" never appear?
Imagine reading a puff piece on oil sands, and the words "carbon dioxide" or "environment" or "water" or "net energy" never appear? That's what happens in your article.
You are really misleading your readers, kind sir. I would recomment [sic] that you conduct more research and get back to your readers with your findings. I think you owe it to them.
No need to respond-- just wanted to get it off my chest.
Don’t you just love it when people can’t stick to the subject at hand because they know they have nothing substantive to say about it? I addressed only oil sands and in the context of using them to replace oil. As with the extraction and burning of all fossil fuels, oil sands produce carbon dioxide, affect the environment, and use water. As far as net energy goes, all energy requires some energy to make. But insofar as oil sands don’t receive subsidies (unlike gasohol, with which so many greens are enamored) and produces such tidy profits, obviously it produces substantial net energy. Apparently the “MW” in your company’s name stands for “More Wasteful.”
Passive Smoking Hate
[This is one of those cases where I recognize from the first letter that inside an apparently sane if hypocritical man there’s a raving lunatic desperately try to emerge. My job was to help that lunatic get out. Mission accomplished.]
Dial “H” for Hypocrite
I smoked cigarettes for 20 years, and I quit over 20 years ago. I live in California, where smoking in public indoor spaces is simply banned -- banned in bars, restaurants, the work-place, theaters, meeting halls -- any public building. And that is the way it should be.
The stench from one of those things -- which is not a tobacco product [I still enjoy an occasional good cigar or occasional pipe-load of Virginia burley], as such, [Burley is a variety of tobacco that is no less harmful than other varieties] but a medium for delivering nicotine and carcinogens -- is disgusting, repellent, and revolting from as far as 50 paces. I walk through a gauntlet of smokers on the sidewalk, and the wretched impact of breathing the smoke from the loiterers in the street is revolting. I suppose they should be allowed to smoke somewhere, but I wish it were simply illegal.
I have had to leave apartments because of cigarette smokers; I have had to seek out a non-smoking apartment building -- thankfully, there are a few.
Something that causes cancer, is addictive, and harms others who live with smokers, should be illegal. If pot is illegal, then cigarettes should certainly be.
You can call the anti-smoking movement "jihadist" if you want, but it's nothing more than common sense and self-defense.
Looking over your Web [sic] site, I conclude that what you amount to is an industry stooge.
Dear Mr. Conger:
Let me get this straight. I have never smoked a cigarette, pipe, or cigar and have declared doing so idiotic. You admit to continuing to smoke cigars (only good ones, to be sure) and pipes, even though you label tobacco “a medium for delivering nicotine and carcinogens.” What does that make me and what does it make you? Further, I have never declared the “anti-smoking.” move to be jihadist; that was explicitly a reference to fanatical efforts against the PASSIVE smoking movement. But I guess the fumes from your stogie got in your eyes. When you object so strenuously to the smoke of others even as you eagerly subject yourself directly to your own pollution, this is what’s called “hypocrisy.” Look it up. And when you say I “amount to . . . “an industry stooge” you mean you have no evidence that I have or ever have had connections to tobacco companies and cannot find it because it isn’t there. Conversely, you support them through your smoking habits. Again, the “h-word” seems applicable. I conclude that you are nothing more than a selfish self-polluter who insists on converting personal preferences to law, even though his current actions would be a violation of that law. Somebody stinks, and it isn’t just because of that cigar smoke on his clothes.
Dear Mr. Fumento,
(A very droll and appropriate name, under the circumstances, if I may say so.)
Dear Mr. Conger:
For your edification, my name appears in two languages. In Portuguese it means “to create.” That’s why there’s a Portuguese “Banco di Fumento.” In Italian, it means “to ferment” or “brew.” It often appears before the Italian word for “beer.” I am of Italian descent (though some of my ancestors went to Portugal), therefore I am probably descended from beer brewers. During the Middle Ages, when Europeans began to take last names, which were often based on their trades, beer had a different purpose than now. Fermenting either wine or beer was a means of killing germs in drinking liquids back when people dumped their sewage into their water supply. Fermenting killed germs; hence, my ancestors were lifesavers and that’s the origin of my “droll” name. I do thank you, however, for considering it “appropriate.” As for you, a Conger is an eel. It’s slimly and ugly and slips and slides all over the place. A very droll and appropriate name, under the circumstances, if I may say so.
My “attack on you” was neither circumstantial nor ad hominem. Your use of “circumstantial” is nonsensical. As to “ad hominem,” an example of that would be saying “Don’t listen to Conger’s arguments; after all, he enjoys sex with waterfowl. Male waterfowl. Underage male waterfowl.”
In other words, it has nothing to do with the subject. I accused you of hypocrisy, which applies since you want laws passed against something you do. You properly described smoking as the killer it is and yet you continue to engage in it. I on the other hand am consistent in saying smoking is a killer and never having smoked. I am also a proud descendent of people who saved lives with beer, but then we’ve already discussed that haven’t we?
Dear Mr. Fumento:
I was trying to inject some humor and perhaps steer this colloquy away from being a pissing contest, but I can see that will not work. [He’s right; it won’t. 1, 123 words omitted due to overly high urea content.]
P.S. In Portuguese, "to create" is para criar, and in Italian, "to ferment" is per fermentare. In a debate, one does best to get his facts and his logic in good order.
Dear Mr. Conger:
If there’s one thing you are clearly good at it’s displaying ignorance in every field into which you venture, including onamastics. (No, not onanism; that’s a fancy word for “self-abuse.” I don’t doubt you do have expertise there.) Onamastics is the study of the origin of names. But you needn’t have known that term to realize how foolish you were to simply look up the definitions I gave you in modern Italian and Portuguese dictionaries. Both the spellings of names and of the words whence they originated have changed over the centuries. Many American names were changed as recently as their arrival at ports-of-entry such as Ellis Island. Had I told you my name was “Smith” and originally meant “a metal worker” in German, you would have claimed that’s false because by looking in a German dictionary you’d have found that the modern German word for that (dialects aside) is “Schmidt.” But Schmidt, Smith, Smythe, and other variations are all descended from the Old High German “smid.” I explained what “Fumento” meant when people began adapting surnames many hundreds of years ago. I even gave you a trail to follow by noting that using a search engine you can find “fumento” before “beer” and that there’s a “Banco di fumento.” You ignored both. Anybody with half a brain would consider that possible origins for “Fumento” were “fermenter,” as I suggested, or possible “fumer” as in a smoker of meats and fishes; those are occupations. Smoking tobacco is hardly an occupation and would not have led to a surname. As for the Portuguese origin of Fumento, it’s still in use in English and Spanish. Webster’s second definition of “foment” means “to promote the growth or development of” while that same definition in Spanish applies to the word “fomento.”
The only possible conclusion here is that you are operating with less than half a brain, which makes you disabled and me politically incorrect for taunting you over your disability. I don’t know how I’ll ever live with myself. But I’ll manage.
Again, you fail to address the issue, which was not, in the first place, your family name. You refused to address my reasoning, and rather choose to abuse me over the matter of names. It is appropriate that you should be preoccupied with such matters, as you certainly cannot discern what is pertinent from what is not. You got everything wrong as to the issue we were arguing; I proved that your reasoning is faulty; so you can come back only with a load of horseshit concerning your bloody, unimportant name. [107 hysterical words omitted.] You prove, again, with your name-calling and personal abuse that you are hopelessly addicted to ad hominem arguments of the lowest description, and that when you are out-reasoned, you turn to abuse, as when a skunk has lost the game of pursuit and can only turn his tail to create a horrible stench.
I've been reading more of your Web [sic] site, and I see that I was right to begin with.
The only thing more despicable and slimy than a paid industry stooge is a free-lance, volunteer industry stooge, and that is what you are. You make me puke.
I don't have time for an asshole like you, not one day at a time, not one minute more. I had thought perhaps you would abandon your churlish asininity, but I see clearly, now, that it comprises your entire mind and personality.
Dear Mr. Conger:
Thank you. We’ve just re-enacted the scene in A Few Good Men where Jack Nicholson tries desperately to play it calm and cool but under pressure finally explodes, showing his true side. Epithets aside, you seem to be saying that I played you for a fool. Can you perhaps think of a reason for that?
Gulf War Syndrome Hate
Perhaps He Would Prefer Humble Bullshit
I think you are a big cunt-- I am so sick of seeing your arrogant bullshit about GWS -- if you are so smart, which you think you are, then why is it that many vets are sick [sic]
Hiding behind Molly’s skirts, huh? Well that you should. Do you believe that 14 years after the Gulf War all 700,000 vets should be perfectly healthy? If so, you’re not particularly bright but rather more like the type of person who would accuse somebody of being oversized female genitalia. If not, then just how many vets should be sick? Once you’ve answered that then tell me how many vets are sick? Answer these or I’ll have Molly give you a boot in the butt.
Well that’s good I got your attention -- [In a rather pathetic manner.] I can’t say that just because someone is sick is automatically [sic] something from serving in the gulf [sic] or GWS but in my case I did not ever go to the gulf [sic] but was prepared by certain vaccinations that are very controversial and the same day I recieved [sic] these unproven vaccines, I did get sick and to this day I am still sick with my illnesses being very unusual and do replicate GWS—[As indeed they would have to, since “GWS” includes every symptom ever identified.] I don't believe everything that people claim but living with what I am it leads me to believe that I became sick from these vaccinations-- So I have read alot [sic] of your letters and you seem to state that no one has a basis of a claim of unusual illnesses but you can't seem to be of assistance to anyone with your superior knowledge as to the high percentage of illnesses and the fact that the VA does benefit veterans with these so called "undiagnosed" illnesses!
High percentage of illness? I don't think so. Always trust data before rumors. Here are the data:
Once again as I see is your theme, you don't address an individuals [sic] specific problems-- OK let me say low percentage of illness but to be fair, the new insert with the anthrax vaccine is stating up to 35% rate of side effects!!
Actually, the label says “the most reported events were localized, minor and self-limited and included muscle or joint aches, headache and fatigue. Across these studies, systemic reactions were reported in 5-35% of vaccine recipients and included reports of malaise, chills, rashes, headaches and low-grade fever. Women reported these symptoms more often than men.” These are immediate reactions; not long-term ones such as you claim. In any case, you began by asking why so many vets are sick. That shot down, you're asking about vaccine labels. Sorry, God didn't put me on earth to play 20 questions with you. I'm a vet, too, and I voluntarily went to the Gulf as a reporter and nearly died for my troubles. I have no sympathy for Gulf War Weenies. Bye.
OK little bitch have a nice life and REMEMBER what comes around goes around [Sic, the expression is “What goes around, comes around.] oh [sic], by the way ask your wife if she wants her stanky panties back!! [Apparently, “stanky” is a superlative of “stinky,” as in “stinky,” “stanky,” “stankiest.”]
More from the “Walking Wounded”
Your are truly an ass.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Well, I certainly do have an ass. I keep it just below my lower back. As for you, your demeanor and date of medical retirement just screams that you’re another Gulf War Weenie. The payments you so happily accept for a disease that doesn’t exist take money away from the war on terror. Has Osama bin Laden sent you a thank you card yet? If not, that’s your real complaint.
Stem Cell Hate
Like Nancy Reagan, and like Christopher Reeve, I may not have a medical background either, but I have personally spoken with several different physicians including a few neurologists at Washington University here in St. Louis, and every single one of them have told me that Bush's ban on stem cell research has set back science here in the United States to a very sad standstill in many ways. [Is it a setback or a standstill; it can’t be both.] My mother has Parkinson's Disease [sic], and I do believe that after attending lectures on the topic of stem cell research and speaking personally with some very smart educated people on the topic, that you are quite wrong in your thinking. It is very sad to think that we could go so very far in this area and help so very many people, but that we are not doing so just because of one stubborn and misguided man's decision. I would hope that you would confer with other highly educated people on this topic, and see what they have to say.
Dear Mr. Brownstein:
I think you need to talk to a few more physicians. There is no ban on stem cell research generally nor on the controversial variety, embryonic stem cells (ESCs) specifically. Nor is there a funding ban. As we speak, ESC researchers are receiving private, state, and federal money. The only restriction (not a ban) is that federal funds may only be used on cell lines that were already established a few years ago. Since you did not know that, I trust you also don’t know that ESC funding takes money away from research with adult stem cells, cells now used in the treatment of more than 80 different diseases and experimentally in 950 trials. Do you know the corresponding number for ESCs? No, so I’ll make it easy. It’s zero and zero. Is that what constitutes, in your belief, going “so very far in this area and [helping] so very many people”? Or does your e-mail reflect the thinking of a stubborn and misguided man? Whomever you spoke with cares nothing for your mother and everything for fattening their budgets at the federal trough. If you wish to help them, that’s your decision. But I choose to remain on the side of your mother.
The Hills Are Alive with the Sound of Morons
Have you seen the video of the animals at Covance? Please take a look before your defend this horrendous treatment of these poor animals.
No, I haven’t seen it. That’s why I spent three paragraphs discussing what it portrayed and even told my readers where they could view it online. You may not believe this, but lab animals aren’t treated like pets. That said, these animals were certainly not abused in any way.
Please check out the video on Peta.org
It will make you cry. I haven’t been able to get these images of these poor monkeys out my mind. I just can’t believe my eyes.
You may only be “16 going on 17” but that doesn’t excuse your continued objections to that which you refuse to even read. Call me brutal, but when I see well-kept monkeys being used in experiments that will save countless human lives I don’t exactly go through three boxes of Kleenex. Maybe if you got Rolf to open your eyes you’d find something worth believing.
Please check out the video and you will see they are not “well kept.”
Check out this video and please……………..no need to be nasty.
“You need someone older and wiser telling you what to do.” I made it abundantly clear in my first response that I did view the video; but you keep ignoring that because it doesn’t suit your purposes. I wonder if your affinity for young Nazis plays a role in your support for PETA. After all we know that, like PETA, Hitler liked animals and loathed humanity.
Subject: HIV = AIDS Myth
Have you read the works of Peter Duesberg or Eleni Papadoulos? Both show a complete refutation of the HIV=AIDS hypothosis.AIDS [sic] is shown to be a collection of 30 different diseases with over 99% caused by Heavy [sic] legal/illegal drug abuse or in the case of Hemophiliacs [sic], foreign particulates in commercial clotting factors. AIDS in Heavy [sic] drug abusers is cured by elimination of "fast-track" lifestyle factors.
[87 words fast-tracked.]
I am 25 year old homosexual man, not given to flights of sheer speculative fancy.
[45 words of sheer speculative fancy omitted.]
Even if you write me off as of [sic] my rocker, please consider the Duesberg and Papadoulos literature. These are not quacks honking [sic] snake oil for AIDS denial.
[43 words written off.]
Dear Mr. Tobin:
Insofar as I was among the earlier critics of Peter Duesberg and his asinine hypothesis, dating back to at least 1992, I would seem to have a certain familiarity with his writings. Since then over a dozen drugs have been marketed that by incredible coincidence not only directly attack HIV – to a point where it can’t be measured in the blood – but also tremendously alleviate the symptoms of AIDS and vastly prolong the lives of people with HIV/AIDS. As to you, I don’t think you’re off your rocker. I think you’re not especially bright and have latched onto a talisman that you think will allow you to have all the unprotected anal intercourse you want without fear of giving or getting AIDS. You are thus comparable to those who buy quack diet books saying they can eat all the high-calorie food they want and still “watch that fat just melt away.” It’s a shame people like you exist, but in your case it might not be for much longer.
Subject: Taffic [sic] camera company flacks have you suckered, sir.
Dear Mr. Fumento. [sic]
Your book, Myth of Heterosexual Aids [sic] , is a courageous and towering work, so it pains me to tell you that you have been bamboozled in the matter of traffic cameras, used to catch people who are running red lights. The shortest way to demonstrate this to you is to say that these creeps who set up the traffic cameras also arrange to SHORTEN THE TIME SPAN FOR THE YELLOW LIGHT as to increase the number of 'violators', and increase the amount of money made by the city in traffic fines. Don’t blindly believe me, read the writers at Car and Driver magazine. Patrick Bedard is most persuasive on this point.
Dear Mr. Reid:
It is the decision of the municipality, not the maker or the installer of traffic light cameras, how long a yellow light will last. What you’re really saying is that you want to be able to run red lights with impunity. I have seen terrible accidents from people running red lights and every single business day near my downtown D.C. office I see massive gridlock caused by drivers who run red lights only to find themselves stuck in the middle of the crossroads. I think what you need to consider, sir, is that if YOU can run stoplights with impunity then so can everyone else. That might be something for you to contemplate in that split second before a Godzilla-sized SUV zips through a red light and turns you and your vehicle into a pile of metal-plastic-flesh goo.
Hate Mail Hate
Give ‘em a Break; They’re Suffering from Wickedness Syndrome
Ref: your response to MMR hate mail on your website.
I'm sure a lot of people would have more respect for you if you responded to your hate mail without sarcasm or silly pictures. These are parents of ill children, not trained journalists like yourself, and you do yourself no credit with the contemptible and superior manner in which you treat them.
I look forward to reading your future articles.
I assume you wouldn’t have bothered to write unless you had actually read that hate mail. Over 99.9% of the parents of autistic children don’t write to me and I assume they are good and decent folk. The ones who do appear on my pages clearly don’t belong in that category. Which of these people deserve to be treated in a less contemptible manner? The one who wrote:
“your baby killing toy called vaccination (yes 666 funnily enough) is due to end one day, so your satantic [sic] toy is going to burn in heaven asshole”
“You are a complete asshole!”
“May God have mercy on your soul for all the damage you have done with your article.”
“Thanks for joining the fray. Unfortunately you sound like Howard Stern. Maybe sensationalism will get you some publicity.”
“Such massive ignorance I have yet to behold in a reporter as in your article.”
“Dr. Wakefield heals; it is my unequivocal belief that perennially vindictive individuals such as you ‘have blood on their hands.’”
“You are so blind and so stupid.”
You obviously believe people should be judged on the basis of something other than their actions. I obviously disagree. It is rare in life that people get what they deserve; at least in this instance these people did. In fact, even now I am judging you on the basis of your actions. I'm sure a lot of people would have more respect for you if paid a little more attention to what you write, rather than making a doomed effort to defend the indefensible.