Crimes Against Nature : How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Highjacking Our Democracy

Rating:
Summary: Are you mad enough to not take it anymore?
Review: "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert F Kennedy, Jr, is a book which
should be read by anybody who cares about the future our kids will
inherit. Is there anybody who is against this simple and obvious
thought? Apparently so, from reading this book.

Hopefully it'll make you angry enough to get involved and flood
the switchboards of the federal politicians to counteract the
bribery ...ah... I mean campaign contributions accepted by most of
our so-called representatives.

Every page is chock full of so many scrupulously-researched,
deliberately diabolical efforts of the bush administration and his
henchmen it makes me wonder how we'll ever survive as a nation,
not to mention as a planet. And his litany of indictments is
extensively foot-noted in the back of the book so people can refer
to his sources. The few items I knew about independently seemed to
be accurately described in his book.

He devotes a whole chapter to the colossal hyprocrisy of the bush
administration's so-called homeland security. Numerous reporters
have wandered into chemical company storage areas, planting mock
explosives with no problem. And bush resists any attempts by
anybody to require chemical storage areas to have even a little
bit of security. As Robert says, "as our nation spends hundreds
of billions of dollars searching for WMD in Iraq, we are ignoring
[these] 15,000 WMDs on American soil.'

And he points out that our nuclear reactors may be impervious to
911-type strikes by air, but by destroying support facilities
around the reactor, (cooling facilities, spent fuel storage tanks,
etc.) terrorists could release enough radiation to make the
Chernobyl disaster look like a fire-cracker. And one of these
plants is 40 miles from Manhattan!

Captured Al Qaeda terrorists confirm that "nuclear facilities were
Al Qaeda's first choice of a target." However, I oppose Robert's
desire for the FAA to institute a no-fly zone around nuclear
reactors because that would not afford any protection. A terrorist
would ignore the rule, and there'd be no time to shoot anybody
down, so what's the point?

One of the most serious problems Robert identifies in a chapter
called "What Liberal Media?" is corporate control of the
media. This prevents the facts, which would outrage most Americans
if they were to know, from getting out to the public.

Reagan, a president worshipped by imbeciles everywhere, got rid of
the Fairness Doctrine in 1988. It had been in place since 1927
guaranteeing that more than one view would be heard over the
public airways. The current FCC chairman, Michael Powell is now
the main problem here, surprisingly galvanizing even some of the
right wing against his efforts to encourage media consolidation.

One surprise to me was that the only mention of Arnold
Schwarzenegger (the CA governor) was in a positive light. He was
in the process of doing the right thing on some environmental
initiative when his efforts were preempted by bush and his thugs.

A few more memorable quotes found in the book:

Teddy Roosevelt observed American Democracy is too sturdy to be
destroyed by a foreign enemy. But, he warned, it could easily be
destroyed by "malefactors of great wealth" who would subvert our
political institution from within.

Abraham Lincoln said "I have the Confederacy before me and the
bankers behind me, and for my country, I fear the bankers most."

Benito Mussolin observed that "fascism should more appropriately
be called 'corporatism' because it is the merger of state and
corporate power."

Any of that sound familiar? Apparently not to a large number of
deliberately-uninformed Americans.

Rating:
Summary: Crime Against Discourse
Review: Another anti-business/anti-Republican/anti-development screed, this one authored by the extant lineage of Democrat saints and bolstered with terminally trendy "Bush = Nazi" rhetoric. Kennedy doesn't ultimately say anything original here, it's merely culled from environmentalist bugaboos of yore, dressed up in histrionics for contemporary political animosity by portraying Bush as environmental rapist #1, yet another detriment in the densely populated list of characteristics making him Evil Incarnate in the eyes of his opponents.

Kennedy's primary argumentative tactics are:

1) Anecdotal Evidence. When lacking empirical data, toss in repeated personal anecdotes (which by their nature are sequestered from objective analysis) to establish guilt.

2) Genetic Fallacy. Obviate an opposing position's veracity by attacking its origin. Kennedy consistently employs this technique via:

A. Argumentum ad Hominem (assailing individuals, not their conclusions). Instead of evaluating counter-arguments directly, Kennedy summarily dismisses anyone associated with Bush or the private sector as "sleazy," "crooks," "scoundrels," and "charlatans." Every institute remotely conservative in nature Kennedy labels "right-wing" because attaching that "-wing" suffix to a political designation is the simplest way to denounce it as exemplary of extremism and therefore lacking credibility -- no empirical evaluation of positions required.

B. Impugning Motives. Kennedy expeditiously rejects scientific contentions opposite his beliefs as being generated by corporate cronies and "biositutes" who "shill" for "paymasters" -- never examining scientific credentials or refuting arguments directly. He disregards the logical premise that motives in and of themselves have no bearing on factual conclusions. Wrongdoing or error must be substantiated before motive can be questioned.

3) Petitio Principii (assuming to be true that which has not been proven). Despite Kennedy's assertions, global warming (if it's even occurring), asthma, Down's syndrome, and other maladies being the direct result of human-created pollutant emissions has not been conclusively established.

4) Clichéd Characterization. Kennedy eviscerates private sector organizations as being congenitally "sleazy," "crooked," "reptilian"-hearted, capitalistic despots. (Corporate entities and their often-exuberant revenues make easy whipping boys, especially when ginning up the resentment mojo of individuals predisposed to antipathy for "the wealthy few.")

5) Shameless Hyperbole. The puerile, convoluted "Bush = Nazi" analogy. When unequipped with sufficient intellectual ammunition to persuade, simply demonize your target by drawing inane comparisons to the most universally reviled figure in twentieth century history. (If Kennedy couldn't place the Bush environmental policies on par with Nazi atrocities, the moral superiority implicit in his positions would appear relatively unjustifiable. Bush's actions are, therefore, "CRIMES against nature" -- nature being more inherently virtuous than humans who might simply hold different opinions than Kennedy.)

6) Outright Falsehood. Although Kennedy claims Bush & Co. are permitting SUVs to "escape fuel-efficiency minimums," even the NRDC itself acknowledges that a slight fuel economy standard INCREASE (including for SUVs) was implemented by Bush & Co. (There are numerous additional examples, but I'm limited to a 1000-word review here.)

7) Non Sequitur. For Kennedy to extrapolate that because media outlets aren't covering environmental "scandals" to his satisfaction those outlets are somehow biased towards pro-business Republicans is defective logic. "If X doesn't discuss Y, then X is supportive of Y" is an incongruous premise tailored to Kennedy's Bush-bashing needs.

8) Either-Or Thinking. Either you agree with Kennedy and all his pronunciations or you're "crooked," a "charlatan" or a "scoundrel."

9) Unsubstantiated Conspiracy. When Kennedy asserts that "the Bush people are secretly plotting to eliminate all federal environmental regulation within a year," not only is he hysterically alarmist, he's also full of s***. Speculative fear mongering isn't based on existing factual data, simply an appeal to emotion.

10) Lip-Service. For all his hand-wringing over projecting an anti-capitalist image, Kennedy exhibits a remarkable ignorance of free-market capitalist economics:

A. Even were his conspiratorial allegation (#9) correct, true free-marketers wouldn't see the elimination of federal regulations as necessarily detrimental to ecological health. Simply because a stream or wetland, for instance, is not overseen by federal regulation doesn't mean it's going unprotected.

B. Claiming that auto manufacturers "already have the technology" to produce SUVs which achieve the same gas mileage as passenger cars is patently absurd -- any company producing such a product would subsequently incur immense revenues for providing it to an economically-minded public.

C. Requiring an arbitrary miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency increase as a solution to Middle Eastern oil dependence overlooks a basic economic maxim: Imposed efficiency does not reflexively translate into lower consumption -- "efficient" has no relation to "frugal."

D. Kennedy decrying "the occult art of cost-benefit analysis" is hypocritical, as cost-benefit analyses prove useful when practiced by eco-defenders via the Precautionary Principle (the argument that because there's a possibility something MIGHT go disastrously wrong, it's better to be safe than sorry).

E. How an anti-market Fairness Doctrine might expose more environmental issues is suspect, considering the media's livelihood is to be alarmist about ANYTHING -- they have been repeatedly so with environmental scares (Alar, Dioxin, nuclear power, ozone, global warming, etc.)

11) Woeful Predictability. What Lefty book would be complete without a diatribe against ClearChannel, et al? This obligatory rant on the oligarchic media and the celebrity culture it fosters especially galling, considering Kennedy's status within it.

The rest is simply shrill, overwrought, sanctimonious filler constituting a partisan harangue defining Kennedy's ridiculous underlying thesis (Republican business interests corrupt the political arena, Democrat public interest groups never do). His use of the above techniques may be acceptable in chic anti-Bush circles, but not in rational discussion -- voguish Bush-bashing hysteria and overwrought blanket statements are hollow argumentative maneuvers. Kennedy's simply contrived a venomous jeremiad against a presidential administration of an opposing political ideology, using his environmental populist shtick as a crutch.

Reviewers dutifully gushing over Kennedy's tome would doubtless take issue with what are considered inflammatory rhetorical practices when issuing from Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al. Yet I'm at a loss as to how Kennedy's persistent labeling of those who disagree with his notions as "sleazy," "crooks," "scoundrels," "Torquemada's successors in the White House," and Nazis is categorically different. Apparently vitriol just needs to be directed towards the "correct" target to be considered legitimate discourse.



Rating:
Summary: Alarming Yet True
Review: As an ecologist and educator, I will admit that prior to reading this book, I had already formed my own strong views on the current administration. After reading this book, I find that my concern is more than well-merited! As it is after the election, I can only believe that many a voter has bought Bush's good-ole boy image. Unfortunately for them, their livelihoods and their childrens' are at risk.

I agree that this book is about about the corrosive effect of corporate corruption on our core American values -- free-market capitalism and democracy." When did it become okay to sacrifice scientific integrity, long term sustainability of our natural resources and our health for short term economic gains??
Is this ultimately a trend whereas we say we are pro-environment and pro-health yet still drive our gas-guzzling SUV's to work?? (only one example)

Following the recent cuts to environment and education I am even more shell-shocked. Inner city childhood asthma rates are on the rise. So much for "No Child Left Behind." Apparently it is easier to demand more of our teachers and require more standardized textbooks than it is to provide money for beneficial education programs, more teachers and larger schools.

I do not understand my friends who voted for the continuation of this administration who profess to have voted for moral and family values as well as for the President's performance following 9-11. Family values! When did abortion, oil conglomerates, and stem cells relate to family values??? What about protecting our natural resources and ensuring our children's education? What about the systematic dismantling of 30 years of environmental laws. While the political contributors are enriching their lives with more cash, the quality of life IS decreasing for the rest of us.

Robert F. Kennedy has made a powerful, well referenced, well-researched argument for his case. In every way, he has confirmed my worst fears.


Rating:
Summary: Bush Evil? Doubt It. His Policies? No Doubt.
Review: Bush was a pseudo oil guy so he surrounds himself with oil guys. He blindly goes with the people he knows. He lacks the consideration that he is being lead astray by the industry lobbyists he appoints. He doesn't realize the importance of receiving differing view points, nor does he understand the concept: "Conflict of Interests." -what a dolt And unfortunately, I don't think he could interpret new information even if it was allowed to be presented. After all, science is from the Devil. And we all know that profits and property are more important than people. Mr. Bush, there is a balance. Kennedy understands this far better than Bush ever will. Kennedy is only asking that environmentalists be part of the discussion, without being scared to keep quiet or alter evidence. Checks and balances are a good thing, and so is compromise. Everybody riding a bike, bad. Miles per gallon standards staying the same, bad. A one mile per gallon increase every year, it's a step. Burn more coal, bad. Burn no coal, unrealistic and therefore bad. Provisions to greatly increase hydro, wind, and solar energy, a no brainer. An administration with only fossil fuel industry lobbyists, well duh. An administration with only environmentalists, just as bad. A balance of the two along with other view points, ideal. Behind closed doors, bad. Open to the public, good. Understand W? Mr. Kennedy, keep grinding that much needed ax of truth. The book is far reaching and somewhat insinuating, but if only 25% of it is true, and if only half of that 25% is not abused or taken out of context, than the administration still has a gargantuan heap of stink to be ashamed of. Massive fines and jail sentences should not be out of the question. I would love to read a book from the other side, but I doubt they could refute much. Whether you agree or disagree with the author, the book is still A MUST READ.

By John Kerkhoff not Rosie

Rating:
Summary: Just another reason we should have gotten rid of him
Review: I felt sick to my stomach by page 30. By the time I was done reading the book the atrocities of bush were almost comical. I can not believe that anyone that cares about their health or the world they live in would vote for this fool. A vote for bush is the ultimate sign of selfishness.

Rating:
Summary: Suffers from the lack of an index and references
Review: RFK Jr's book is an excellent compendium of the nightmarish legacy of the rightist ideologues since Reagan (i.e. James Watt), and continuing under Bush, in the area of environmental policy. It's an excellent read, if a bit laundery-list-ish. But I give only three stars because it really suffers from the omission of an index, and to a lesser extent the lack of references or bibliography. For example, I was listening today to an interview of Christie Todd Whitman on PBS's Fresh Air. I wanted to review the references to her and EPA in the book that I'd just read. No index... too much hassle.

Rating:
Summary: Alarming content, but slanderous in presenting facts
Review: Robert Kennedy Jr., America's leading environmental litigator, has compiled massive amounts of alarming statistics and shocking information about the pro-industry Bush administration in his book, Crimes Against Nature.

I found the information in this book to be detestable in that the Bush administration will go to any length to promote larger profits for American businesses. Among the long list of examples of cases in which industry prevails over the environment are instances of censorship of scientific evidence and secretive planning committees that, quite un-democratically, decide the outcome of major policy decisions (e.g. 2004 Energy Bill, now expected to pass the House and Senate).

Overall, this book is further evidence of the Bush administration's failure to address the other side of economic good times. But while this book is very well cited, Kennedy is guilty of drawing some weak conclusions and slanderously accusing specific people in potentially unrelated circumstances. This style of writing is entertaining, which will certainly help spread the book's important message, but it will tend to exasperate the pro-industry cornucopians that believe that it is "Morning in America."

The truth is this book would probably be more compelling if it were limited to discussion of the political cover-up of scientific facts and the premeditated rollback of crucially important environmental laws that were once enacted for a reason. If these neo-conservatives are willing to go to the extent of widespread censorship to push a pro-industry agenda, then it is the responsibility of the remaining realists to continue to call attention to empirically proven scientific testimony.

I think all Americans would agree that the health of their children and the safety of our beautiful environment deserve not to be made a political issue but rather an issue of morality....a topic that Mr. Bush seems quite keen on espousing. I recommend this book to anyone with an open mind and a questioning concern for both economic and environmental sustainability.


Rating:
Summary: Will the detractors please present proof
Review: The "pros" for this book far outnumber the "cons". None of the reviewers who rated this book poorly presented any data to the contrary. As best I can tell they're quilty of precisely what they're accusing the author of. This book has 542 references. Admittedly I only checked (so far) 6 of them. Only one had a % that I felt was incorrect (ref. #3, chapter 10). The rest were accurately quoted. In fact, the references were generally more appalling then RFK's text. The problem with the book is that it contains so many environmental transgressions, it's almost depressing to read. But if you care about the environment, it's a must read; then check the questionable references yourself. Even if only 1/2 of what's written is true, it's more than enough to be thoroughly outraged.
I only fault the author for not having an abbreviation listing and an index.

Rating:
Summary: Bjorn Lomborg--You're Kidding
Review: The book is on target all the way. A very worthwhile read if you are concerned about our environment, and how it is being trashed behind our (public) back by the Bush administration. The same could be said of our democracy. That is, it's being trashed as well.

The reviewer who mentioned Bjorn Lomborg should note that Scientific American magazine has argued strongly in several past issues of the magazine against the nonsense peddled by Bjorn Lomborg, in which his book, incidentally, must have set the world record for footnotes.

Rating:
Summary: Care about your country? Read this book
Review: Writing this on the eve of the day after the election, I grabbed it out of the shelf again.
I don't think it is particularly well written, but the issues are alarming for anybody that cares about the well-being of The United States. I suspect that people who think they are mere consumers will with a demanding posture try and find faults with the arguments laid out. People who understand that life is much more complex than markets and marketing people will see in this book a stark warning of that more is to come.
The book draws up a reality very contrary to what the GWBush campaign advertisers have asserted.