On 8 Feb 2006 11:47:16 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm, jim rozen
quickly quoth:

In article ,
says...

He'd be "just your typical radical liberal kook" if he hadn't donated
$23 million last year to these fringe groups. It's the fact that he's
-spending- that much money on the groups which drew my ire, Ed. ...

Why shouldn't he be able to _spend_ his own money? On whatever he
wants?

I thought that was how free market economics worked.

He can and did spend his money as he liked. Who says I have to like
it, hmmm? I scream at pork in our gov't and I scream at wasteful
campaigns and useless legislation like Homeland Security.


--
Unfortunately, not only do scientists have an incentive to cry "crisis,"
so too do the environmental advocacy groups need crises. Without them,
how could advocacy groups justify thier pleas for donations? Nearly
every American gets bulk quantities of junk mail warning them of ozone
depletion, topsoil erosion, resource depletion, diminishing biodiversity,
and global warming. The money the advocacy groups collect is spent on
lawyers, lobbying, propaganda, and the salaries and perquisites of the
headquarers staffs. The media also have a strong incentive to report
"crises"--they must sell newspapers and airtime after all. So there it
is--an iron triangle of scientists pleading for research funds, interest
groups who need crises to justify their existence, and a press that needs
to sell papers. No wonder people are frightened.
--Ronald Bailey in "EcoScam"