Fumento foments

The witch hunt has been ongoing, but my eventual involvement began when Doug Bandow lost his column after acknowledging to Business Week that he’d written pieces for pay for notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Bandow was long a critic of environmental activists, and when he went down a light bulb lit up over their heads.

They realized they might eliminate more of their critics by simply accusing them of being paid corporate shills, and then siccing the media on them to see what they could dig up. They assembled an “enemies list,” giving it to reporters at publications including the New York Times and Business Week. I have locked horns with green groups for the past 15 years and earned a spot on that list.
--Fumento

Large, influential green groups throw their vast money, power and influence around to intimidate innocent writers they don't agree with...small companies like Monsanto and the common man are virtually defenseless in the face of this kind of harassment.*

It was a $60,000 book grant to my employer, solicited back in 1999, which was applied to pre-established salary and benefits.

Javers then asked if I had acknowledged Monsanto in the book. No, I said. I had called numerous scientists who had helped me to ask how they would like to be acknowledged and one at Monsanto said he’d prefer that both he and the company be left out.
[My emphasis]

So--this gets better by the paragraph--MONSANTO employees told you leave out the company? You know, the ones that gave you the money? Told you not to tell anyone else? Yeah, really, how could you ignore those wishes!

Under Javers’ Rules, there’s absolutely no distinction from a book grants to an employer and pay-for-play for individual columns. Further, once you’ve benefited from a grant you are considered forever in the donor’s debt. Never mind that shortly after received the grant I ripped Monsanto for being “chicken-hearted” and caving into environmentalist demands.

Let's take a quick peak at your ripping Monsanto, shall we?

A company that poured a fortune into developing a new strain of corn, soybeans or the like would endow the seed with a gene that would make the next generation of seeds sterile. Thus, farmers who wanted to keep growing the crop would have to buy new seed every year. ...
But the idea ran head-on into an anti-agribusiness, antibiotech crowd. It was labeled the "terminator" seed project. Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins called it "nightmarish." An antibiotech group said it was "industrial imperialism." A British charity declared that the technology would destroy Third World societies. ...
Why did Monsanto turn chicken-hearted? Because it has a huge amount at stake in biotechnology, and it is very much on the defensive these days in the public relations arena. Monsanto has been devastated by the backlash that the greens have whipped up against its biotech crops. ...
Monsanto used to have the best science and the worst p.r. in the business. It's working on the p.r.
[My emphasis]

Ouch! I'm sure that attack permanently scarred your relationship with Monsanto. Back to Fumento:

Therefore the grant must also be disclosed unto eternity – 2006, 2016, 2036, whatever.

Or for that matter, starting in 1999 would have given you that extra touch of credibility [back to the chicken-hearted article]:

Michael Fumento is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. and is writing a book called The Biotech Breakthrough. He is the author of numerous books.

But then again, I'm sure you stopped receiving royalties for your "bestselling" book by now and given back all of the $60K to Monsanto...

If all this sounds insane, remember there really was a time when harmless old biddies went up in flames simply because a neighbor wanted their land or livestock. But I’m no ash heap. The environmentalist THINK they’ve shut me up. Wrong. I have not yet begun to write.

Mike, we're looking forward to your writing!











[*Stole that MP3 idea from Anita Job]