President Bush is in Tanzania saying that the international community is helping prevent malaria in African children by providing MOSQUITO NETTING (who could make this stuff up):
"President Bush handed out hugs and bed nets in Tanzania's rural north on Monday, saying the U.S. is part of a new international effort to provide enough mosquito netting to protect every child between one and five from contracting malaria in this east African nation."
The story indicated that 100,0000 people die from malaria EACH YEAR, and the solution is netting? I am sure you need netting, but DDT might help more. But DDT has not been available for more than three decades.
Do envrionmentalists have blood on their hands--hundreds of thousands, or even millions of lives? There is a strong case that this is so.
Remember DDT, and Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" (circa 1960)? Well, the scientific case against DDT was always overblown ("Silent Spring" was not even close to scientifically accurate). Since the WORLDWIDE ban on DDT (decades ago), examination of the actual facts has shown that the ban was more the result of EMOTTION and hype, rather than scientific fact.
Problem: DDT was, by far, the third world's BEST weapon against malaria (against the mosquitos which carry malaria). Mosquito netting is not even in the running as to an effective weapon against mosquitos. It is almost unimaginable how many people have died (not in the U.S., but in the world) because of the ban on DDT. Would the adverse environmental effects (of course there are some, if overblown) of DDT have outweiged the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of lives that have been lost? I just don't see how. More importantly, environmental groups generated such hysteria that a "neutral" risk/benefit analysis was impossible.
The competition was stiff, but I feel that the harm caused is sufficient to justify giving the weekly "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" statuette/award to Rachel Carson--posthumously (as a stand-in, of course, to radical environmentalists everywhere). Yes, the "Silent Spring" hysteria WAS similar to the present "global warming" hysteria--as the real process of science was perverted by a social/political movement.
Nope. I don't care that Rachel Carson's heart was in the right place. To Rachel Carson and radical environmentalists everywhere: This award is for YOU. You DESERVE it. (Imagine here the presentation of the coveted/dreaded "Finger"--a statuette of an INDEX finger). We have another deserving winner of this monument to stupidity given by this blog (approximately) each week, in a reincarnation of the Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In" award.
The competions was stiff this week, as usual, from the media and politicians (also as usual). A comment (under the entry on the media's disgraceful performance as to the NIU killer) in effect suggested that the media get the award for their PROMOTION/eoncouragement of mass killers. As the comment said, if we did not have the media providing these killers with the fame they crave (even if often posthumously), we would probably not have many such killers. Even though the NIU killer killed FEWER people than the drag race/vehicle accident over the weekend, the NIU story is still going. Meanwhile, the drag race incident has already faded away. This media pandering to the desire of killers for attention really is disgraceful.
Then there was Barack Obama, and his "call" to "end gun violence" in this country, while providing NO semblance of an idea how that could be done (see entry to come today). Then there is this "meat recall" hysteria, and the SCARE attempts by the media (and politicians like Senator Harkin) to give it a significance it does not have.
You can see how stiff the competion for this award is. Again, it is only the sheer number of people who have died because of the worldwide ban on DDT that caused the award this week to go to Rachel Carson and the radical environmentalists. You will remember that the "global warming" movement has led to this crash program to subsidize "biofuels", which has been called by at least one U.N. official a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY (taking food out of the mouths of the poor). See recent entries over the past week. So the radical environmentalists were actually finalists this week's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award for more than one stupidity. The main stupidity here is not, of course, concern for the environment, but a total lack of perspective and rationality. It may well have been rational to ban DDT in the U.S., and be careful in its use elsewhere. To disregard the consequences of a ban on DDT was simply irresponsible, and why I suggest that environmentalists have blood on their hands. You can't substitute hype and emothion for reason, as I believe too many of the radical environmentalists do.