Of Flat Earths and Religious Tolerance (part 2)

Understanding and our Foreign Policy

Stephen Couglin, a major in the Army Reserves, and the Pentagon’s top expect on Islam, was let go recently. It’s not the failure to keep Coughlin on staff, but the who and the why of Coughlin’s falling out of favor. The who is Hesham Islam, a native of Egypt and chief cook and bottle washer for the second in command at the Department of Defense (DOD), Gordon England.

In spite of holes in Islam’s background story like his claim of remembering Israeli bombing of Cairo during the 6 Days War. (Research shows there is no record of Israel ever bombing Cairo.) or Islam’s claim of being in the Iraqi Navy on the Arabian Sea on a ship that was sunk by Iranians. The problem is (again) there is no record of an Iraqi ship being sunk by Iranians and repeated requests to the DOD for the name of the ship and the date of incident went unanswered.   And, an impartial search uncovers no such incident on record in the Arabian Sea in the time frame Islam says the event happened.   In short nothing in Islam’s background checks out.

So why do Gordon England and the Pentagon put so much trust in Islam. They claim he has 20 years experience in the US Navy and in foreign affairs. With a biography that has unvarifiable data in it and a penchant for fostering communications with groups like the Islamic Society of North America, which according to the Department of Justice, is affiliated with terrorists groups, Islam’s recommendations should be questionable.   Yet his are not and Coughlin’s are. In fact Islam is allowed to speak to the press while Coughlin is not. And, Islam is allowed to disparage Coughlin, a known Christian, by calling Coughlin a Christian zealot and Stephen Coughlin has never said anything disparaging about Islam or his religion.   Islam’s thesis in graduate school includes a scathing attack against Israel and the US. He claims support for Israel has led to the failure of US policy in the Middle East.   Islam blames American Jews for all our ills in the Middle East, including Muslim retaliation against Americans*.

Why is Hesham Islam backed up by the DOD’s second in command while Stephen Coughlin is attacked? For one thing the national press hasn’t taken up the banner for Coughlin. Remember, dear reader, that it’s ok to attack Christians, but verboten to speak ill of Muslims. Stephen Coughlin’s “sin” was to create doctrine that was lacking in political correctness, because it was based on facts. In short Coughlin remembered the Barbary Pirates and the Moors invasion of Europe both of which occurred centuries before the existence of Israel.   And, he knows what it’s not politically correct to say. Muslims will not be happy unless everyone believes as they do and it’s been that way since the beginning. Those Muslims who just want to peacefully co-exist with other religions (moderates) can be killed. 

And, we wonder why they never say anything about the bombings, defilings, etc.   No sense losing your head over these differences is there?

Is the water hot enough for you yet?

*Questions for the Pentagon, Claudia Rosett, NRO Contributor, 4/8/2008.

Of Flat Worlds and Religious Intolerance

The widespread view that Islam is the religion of peace doesn’t correlate with the roots of Islam and its founder Mohammad. When Islam was founded it was spread by the sword. (Remember, the Moorish architecture in Spain, came from somewhere.   The Moors invaded Europe through Spain to spread their religion and they didn’t preach like 7^th Day Adventists or other faiths. They came swords in hand. Convert or else.)

When the religion was founded Mohammad raided an area, captured it and then made an offer. Join Islam or be put under the sword. At the very least pay a tax, the jizyah, to Islam and its founder and we won’t kill you; we’ll just tax and enslave you. (1) (Who could refuse that offer? Just fit me for the burqua. “>)

The Wall Street Journal states that moderate Muslims are moderate because they don’t live up to the demands of their religion. A true Muslim could easily kill them just for being moderate. So moderates won’t say anything critical.

That’s the dilemma at the root of our current foreign policy toward Islam: how to understand the religion. Too many people like to blame terrorism on poverty. That makes us the culprit: not the 9/11 hijackers or terrorist leaders. It’s our fault they’re like this because they’re poor. But just the opposite is true. Most Muslim terrorists come from middle class or wealthy families. 

According to those who study the issue, the roots of Islamic Terrorism are in the religion itself.   Going back to earlier history—the Barbary Pirates (Sheikdoms), who were active during the earliest years of our nation, didn’t like us because to them we represented another Judeo/Christian nation. There were references to jihadi theology made by the Barbary Pirates who described themselves as the “frontier ports of Jihad against European Christians.” (2)

Because of the history of conflict between Islam and European Christianity, the US tried to take a conciliatory attitude toward the Barbary Pirates. We tried to explain the US wasn’t a Christian nation, but a nation dedicated to religious diversity, but our ships were still hijacked.   It wasn’t until sailors and passengers were kidnapped and held hostage that the US Navy was formed and went into action to protect US interests.   The insistence of Islamic potentates on subscribing to an intolerant, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian philosophy did not agree with the basic principles of the US founding fathers. (3)

Historically, the antipathy of Muslims toward the US predates not only the forming of Israel but any US intervention in the Middle East.    In short, it isn’t our fault folks. 

(To be continued.)

Is the water hot enough for you yet?

(1) The Truth About Mohammad, Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, Inc.

(2) The Fallacy of Grievance-Based Terrorism, Melvin E. Lee, Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008 pg. 72 

(3) Ibid

Of Border States and Illegal Immigration

When we live in Illinois we hardly hear about the issue of illegal immigration unless, of course, there is a massive march in favor of illegal immigration in Chicago. There are occasional stories, but nothing like the daily recital that you get from the Arizona media.

Did you know that, according to the Associated Press  (March 5, 2008), a new study concludes that illegal immigration is costing border counties millions of dollars yearly? This is money that could be used for the health and well being of the local citizenry, but instead border counties have to spend this money on things like law enforcement and criminal prosecutions related to illegal immigration. Studies showed that costs increased 39% to 26.6 million in fiscal 2006. That’s in addition to monies that state and local municipalities spend on education, health care, welfare, etc. for illegal immigrants.

In the health area friends in Tucson tell us that local hospitals turn away US citizens because immigrants coming over the border just for health care overburden them. In the Phoenix metro area hospitals financially strapped by “free” emergency room care are closing down. An illegal immigrant (without insurance) was seriously injured and had a broken back among other injuries sustained in a single vehicle motorcycle accident. The US government (that’s US folks) provided free medical care, including numerous surgeries mending broken limbs and back. Unfortunately her injuries were so serious she’ll never walk again. After stabilizing the patient they sent her back to her family in Mexico. The family’s reaction; anger that the US sent her back. Not gratitude for the surgeries that saved her life. Mexico is supposed to have free medical care for its citizens so why was the family angry. Who knows?

Mayor Phil Gordon (Democrat) of Phoenix decided it should no longer be a sanctuary city. My first response was to thank Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, but it turns out I was wrong. Pressure from the police union did the trick. Turns out that an illegal immigrant who had been stopped several months before for a traffic violation murdered a police officer. In spite of his status under sanctuary laws he had to be released for the traffic violation. Two months later he murdered a Phoenix police officer. Needless to say the unions got on Gordon’s back, but opponents of Gordon’s move said that illegals afraid of officials finding out their status won’t turn in criminals so Gordon modified the law. You won’t be asked your citizenship status if you turn in a criminal only if you are a criminal. 

Felonies are routinely committed by illegals that slip back over the border. If they’re caught, they’re released or deported and come back to commit other crimes. Mexican laws make it hard to extradite them and we the people are the victims again and again. Coyotes (that’s human and drug smugglers to the uninitiated). shot at our border patrol and terrorize border town citizens. They even shot at each other as they move their contraband away from the border. Citizens of Tucson, and other cities along the interstates have endured shootouts at local gas stations, Circle K’s and in their own back yards. Innocent victims of border criminals. The Governor of Arizona, Democrat Janet Napolitano’s. Response: To call for the banning of firearm ownership by citizens of Arizona. Nowhere in Napolitano’s request for changing Arizona gun laws was there a way to prevent border criminals from bringing guns in and using them against other border criminals, US citizens or illegal immigrants And, of course, our border patrol agents are constantly the victims of violence either through cross border shootings, stoning and intimidation. Sometimes their adversaries are coyotes other times it’s the Mexican Army. At all times it’s connected to Mexican gangs and drug lords.

Meanwhile Arizona is really enforcing e-verify. Illegal immigrants are moving out of Arizona and settling in other states like New Mexico and Texas. As a result, school enrollment is going down and schools are being closed. Education costs are coming down and the taxpayers can possibly breath a sign of relief. Cause for celebration right? Wrong. The education unions are livid. And, the beat goes on.

And. For all our efforts it’s not working perfectly. Safe houses are constantly being found and shut down usually on the western edge of the Phoenix metro area. Three houses were closed in one weekend in the Phoenix area alone. In one a 5-bedroom, they found 88 illegals and a few coyotes. In another they found 55. A couple moving into a house in the Western valley found illegals stashed there. They alerted the police. 

I know I’ve told a lot of you other stories such as sewage coming over from Mexico and polluting rivers on the American side. The Mexican government refuses to do anything about it so the US taxpayer will have to foot the bill for a larger sewage treatment plant so that the citizens of Tucson aren’t exposed to raw sewage. Or the pedophiles that come over the border to molest American children and then slip back to their sanctuary in Mexico. How long Democrats and Republicans will put up with this abuse of American citizens is beyond me. The Democrats do it because they’re catering to the Hispanic vote (in a lot of states you don’t have to have proof of citizenship to be registered to vote.), and the Republicans are catering to businessmen who want the cheap labor. At least on the Republican side it isn’t a prerequisite to belonging to the party. I know a lot of Republicans who oppose illegal immigration. Key members of Congress like Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are opposed to illegal immigration. In Illinois we have good guys like Jim Oberweis and Peter Roskam. As for the rest, they’re idiots.

Is the water hot enough for you yet?

Symbolism vs. Substance

I once heard a political pundit say something that struck me. A sign by a school that says something like “this is a drug free (or gun free) zone” is only symbolism. He was right on the mark. Saying it and making it so are two different things.

You can take that and translate it into this year’s presidential campaign. Some candidates speak only in symbols, but there is no substance behind what they say. Enter Barack Obama. I listened to one of his speeches and in the words of former Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale, “Where’s the Beef?”

While Barry ranted and raved and people fainted and cheered (even when he blew his nose), he said nothing of substance. Ok Barry you want change and so do your minions. What are you going to change? How are you going to do it? Who’s going to pay for it? At last Hillary Clinton to her credit answers the first two questions. It’s the who’s going to pay for it that always gets neglected.

But if you’re charismatic not being able to answer those questions is unimportant. But if charisma is your thing remember, Adolph Hitler was charismatic, too. Look what happened to Germany. Do we think they thought enough about it to consider the ramifications? At the outset even Germans of Jewish heritage backed Hitler. Remember, you too might end up paying for the change that everyone else expects.

Least you think that’s not possible because you don’t make enough money—wrong. You make 50,000 or less so you won’t be taxed. Are you sure? How about if you made only $13,000 last year? No taxes right? Wrong? My daughter found that out the hard way one year when she was in college, worked 3 part time jobs to pay for her college education and paid taxes on her job-related income. Unfortunately $3,000 of her income was capital gains from stocks we cashed in to help pay for her college education. Her taxes that year were $1,300. She was hysterical because she didn’t have any money to pay it. Now, I’m sure her grandparents paid taxes on the money before they gave her money for birthdays, Communion, etc so it was taxed twice. So remember even if you earn $50,000 or less a year, if any part of it was capital gains, you’ll still pay taxes, because you are among the much maligned rich who will be taxed for health care for the poor, etc.

The fact that the taxes have put you in the poor house is a fine point that Barry, Hillary, et al don’t want you to even think about. You’re just thinking that you’re getting even with Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc because they’re rich and you’re not. Now, they can afford to give ¾ of their income and still have lots of money, but if you earn $50,000 or $60,000 and you get taxed even more, you will need government funded health care, because you won’t be able to pay for it on your own when more than half your money goes for taxes. 

Ah symbolism, ah substance, ah choo.

Is the water hot enough for you yet? 

Presidential Politics 2008 Style

I’ve resisted writing this, because I didn’t know what to say.  (After reading it you may think I still don’t know what to say.)

I don’t know who I’ll vote for in November yet, but I do know it won’t be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and it sure looks like it will be John McCain.  I’m not happy about that, but it could be worse.  I’ve vacillated toward McCain after my favorite Fred Thompson dropped out.  In fact, I wondered for a long time if Fred Thompson was ever really in.  (The term lackadaisical campaigner comes to mind.)

For the last year we haven’t known who was in and who was out.  Certainly last summer it looked like John McCain’s goose was cooked.  McCain-Feingold came back to bite him in the behind.  But he put that behind him (pardon the pun) and with the help of an unpredictable electorate and Mitt Romney’s

campaign suspension, he looks like the Republican frontrunner.  Of course, Mike Huckabee could fool everyone and with the conservative/religious vote coalesced around one person he could be the nominee.  The way things are going anything is possible.  Huckabee is unlikely to be the winner and McCain doesn’t thrill a lot of people, but he can beat whomever the Democrat’s nominate.

Or can he?  Is this a media/pundit driven potential outcome.  On any given election day who wins and who loses is determined by the electorate.  Once the conventions are over will McCain become the warmonger and old man or Huckabee the hick?   And, will the media portray Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the savior of our country?  Is all of this media driven?  What if the most easily beaten candidate on the other side is Barack Obama?  After all he wants to nuke Pakistan.  What if the most easily beaten Republican is the warmongering/aged John McCain?  We don’t know.

If the eventual democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, McCain is more likely to be perceived like Rick Laszio.  Remember poor Rick Laszio.  He had the distinction of running against Hillary during her first bid for the US Senate from NY.  During a debate he walked across the stage and handed Hillary some papers to prove his point on something and immediately the media portrayed him as threatening her.  (Poor woman.) Who do we think is more likely to be threatening to Hillary, McCain or Huckabee?

There is so much we don’t know and won’t know until the fickle electorate votes on November 4, 2008.  There are too many variables.

There is one thing I know though, I’ll be voting in that election.  And, I’ll be voting for whoever the Republican nominee is.  I may have to hold my nose when I do it, but whomever we nominate will be better than either of the presumptive Democrat nominees.  Let’s do a study.  Remember Billy Dale?  He was the hapless head of the White House travel office when the Clintons came into power.  For whatever reason the Clintons accused him of stealing travel office funds, had the FBI investigate him and it cost poor Billy Dale all of his savings to prove he was innocent.  Billy Dale wasn’t the only victim of the Clintons quest for power.  There were others whose personal files were stolen and confiscated by the White House.  Would you really want to vote for her to be President and endure another four years of whom can we intimidate now?

Then there’s Barack Hussein Obama.  No he’s most likely not a Muslim, but the Pastor of his church is a racist and you have to wonder who would belong to a church with a pastor with clearly anti-white views.

We can also examine Obama’s voting record while in the Illinois State Senate.  Or wait!  What voting record?  Obama’s explanation is that it’s procedure in Illinois to vote present.  We should add only if your name is Barack Obama and you don’t want to leave a clear record on anything.  Such as a ”3 strikes and your out” if you’re a drug dealer.  Everyone else voted yes, but not Barack. 

John McCain has his faults, but there are no Billy Dale’s in his closet and he doesn’t vote present to hide what he believes.  He does have character and courage.  It takes courage to stick to your guns (another pun “>) about being pro Iraq War.  He’s less likely to bomb Iran (or Pakistan for that matter.)  I don’t like all his positions, but compared to Hillary or Barack, he’s got real potential and he’s less likely to raise taxes.

There is No Such Thing as a Free Ride

So many things have me riled right now, but I’ll avoid the temptation to write about all of them and stick to one subject.  The Nanny State.

.

There is no such thing as a free ride.  I was reminded of that when our Governor Rod Blagojevich (Blago or G Rod) amended a bill passed by the legislature to include free rides on the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority)  for seniors.  There’s a problem with that.  The legislature has haggled for months (not just between parties, but intra party) to come up with a plan to bail out the flagging finances of the RTA.  Their solution was a sales tax increase (surprise, surprise).  Rather than just sign the bill the Blago decided to add a caveat.  He’d ok the tax increase if seniors could ride for free.

Now, the governor’s no dummy.  He knows that nothing gets him votes like giving something to some special interest group for free.   Ah, free, but wait, free from the government, is that really free?   Let’s go through the mantra.

It’s being paid for by the government.  It’s free.   Where does government get it money from?  Answer:  Taxes.  Where do taxes come from?  Dead silence.  Even if we don’t pay for something; someone else does through taxes. 

Yep.  That’s right taxes come from us, but wait taxes only come from the rich.  Define rich.  Did you know if you own property you’re considered rich?  So if you bought a house, sacrificed for years living frugally to pay for it (which my husband and I did), you’re rich, because you own property.    Someone always pays and it’s not necessarily Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

I say that with the picture of the happy seniors cheerfully extolling the virtues of free RTA rides.  I’m embarrassed to say I’m from that generation and I’d benefit from the free transit, but I’d also pay for it.  Even if I only spend $1,000 a month locally, it would get taxed and those extra taxes would go toward keeping the RTA afloat (and not raising the fares too much for regular commuters.) and the extra taxes would also go toward free fares for seniors, but through the back door I’d be paying for my own “free” transit.  What’s wrong with this picture.

I also get social security and am (unfortunately) on Medicare.  I get money every month, “free” medical care and tons of other free things or lower cost things designed to keep older folks in line.   But my free is coming on the backs of those people who are currently working, increasing their taxes and making it harder for them to make ends meet.  That means that my daughter needs money for medical expenses, car repair bills and a host of other unexpected expenses.   If she cleared closer to what she actually earns, she wouldn’t need my assistance.

In short, anything from government comes at a price.  How come I can see that and so many other people can’t?

I saw an analogy once.  If you put a frog in tepid water and gradually turn up the heat, the frog won’t jump out even when the water gets hot enough to cook it.  Eventually it dies.

Is the water hot enough for you yet?* 

* I saw this the other day on someone else’s email and realized that I’m not the only one who likes the analogy.  I decided to use it now before it loses its luster.

What’s the Truth about Global Warming

Are we warmer now then we were 30 years ago.  I always wondered what the truth was.

During the 1970’s both my husband and I remember being told we were heading for an ice age and that glaciers would be forming and creeping down from the far northern reaches into the Midwest.  The thought chilled me to the bone.  (That’s not hard to do.) 

Then I heard media favorite personalities saying they were purchasing carbon credits.  We did a little investigation on that and discovered carbon credits were just an excuse for someone to make money (wish we’d thought of it first) and for someone else to cover their excesses.  (There’s another word we could insert here, but I may get censored.)  You can live in a 40,000 square foot house and fly private jets burning up a lot of carbons and make up for it by paying for someone to plant a tree, but wait doesn’t it take a tree years go grow big enough to make a difference.  (Take that starlet who looks serious when she says, but I purchase carbon credits.)

We heard various stories like eating beef was bad because cows emitted a lot of methane.  (So do people.  At our house we call it making holes in the ozone layer).  If we eliminated cows from the world, we’d eliminate a lot of methane, which contributes to ozone depletion.  But then so does turkey (cause people to contribute to ozone depletion that is.)   I suspect that the vegans are behind this solution.  There’s another solution.  Let’s face it if we eliminate people we eliminate a source of methane, etc.   Well you get my drift.  It all seemed ludicrous to us and we were laughing about it way too much.

Let’s face it if people were really serious we’d eliminate cathedral ceilings in all of our buildings.  After all heat rises and who needs to heat the ceiling.  We could lower ceilings, lower heating bills and save the environment. 

Then a lot of our favorite radio personalities called global warming a bunch of bunk and cited experts who agreed with that.  Two articles I came across from columnists certainly made global warming look like a hoax.   One contended that 2007 was actually a year of global cooling.  It cited statistics from South Africa where snow fell for the first time in years and said people were dying in Peru from exposure to the coldest weather in years.  Crops failed, vineyards in New Zealand froze.  Made sense to me, but being a born skeptic I researched it and downloaded some data, including some from NASA.

With the aid of my husband (he is an engineer) to interpret the data I soldiered on.   According to hubby’s reading NASA says our global temperatures have risen less than 1 degree fahrenheit in the last 65 years.  (And, those are stats taken from international data.)  You can't blame that on man made pollution.  And, looking at the data I can see why they were afraid there was an ice age coming.  During the 70’s there was a dramatic drop in global temperatures.  In fact, what the stats show is there seem to be periods of colder and then warmer weather.  Almost like a cycle and it’s been like this for over 100 years. 

I’d  like to see us reduce our dependence on oil and reduce any possibility of man made pollution. The terrorists might have to fund themselves without petro dollars to do it.  Hugo Chavez and Osama Bin Laden might have to dip into their own reserves.  (No pun intended.)  And, wouldn't’t it be nice if some of the energy could come from burning waste products.  No more Mount Trashmores or unspent nuclear fuel.  We’d solve many problems all at once.

The jury is out, but I can dream can’t I.

The Law of Unintended Consequences – III

I like this series.  It proves that no matter how hard they try there is always something that isn’t quite right.

So far we’ve proven that totally eliminating DDT is proving deadly to man (and woman), bio-fuels may not be the answer because using corn and soy beans for energy is raising the price of staples like milk, meat and tacos.  Now let’s go to energy saving light bulbs.

Yes, sir (or ma’am) that’s the answer to all of our energy problems – new and improved light bulbs.  They may cost you more, but they last longer.  (A very good point).  But wait, there’s more. 

They contain mercury which means they just can’t be put in the recycle bin.  They have to be disposed of carefully because mercury is really a biohazard.  (To all of us who played with mercury as kids and lived to tell about it, please don’t snicker.)

Our HOA newsletter advocated buying energy saving light bulbs, but there was a caveat.  What to do if you break one.

The following is their advice:

1. 1.  Open windows and leave the room for at least 15 minutes.  (This’ll be fun in the winter.)

2. 2.  Don’t vacuum or sweep hardwood floors, wear disposable rubber gloves using cardboard to scoop up the debris and clean the area with a damp paper towel. 

3. 3.  Use sticky tape for pick up on carpets then vacuum.

4. 4.  Place debris and cleanup material into a plastic bag, seal it, then put it into another plastic bag and seal it.  Wash your hands.  Place in trash outside.  (Your hands, too????)

5. 5.  Remove vacuum bag or empty & wipe bin.  Treat bag as in step 4.  (How do you treat the bin?)

Some CFLs* smoke, smell or darken at the base when they burn out.  (There go the smoke detectors not to mention all the little old men.)  They won’t catch fire.  (Neither will the little old men.)  Once the bulb has cooled, remove it.  Then send an email message with a photo of the bulb and its make and model to CFL@energystar.gov.  (This assumes you have email and a digital camera and know how to use them.  I can use one, but one the other.)

How many of these do you think will just end up in landfills mercury and all?  Or they could do what my folks did when I was a kid.  Just wipe up and get a new thermometer.  (They were more worried about the pieces of glass on the bathroom floor.)

As for me I’ll just continue using the old light bulbs.  Just remember to shut off the lights when you leave a room and don’t put in too high of a wattage. 

Do they think I was born yesterday.  (Don’t answer that.)

*By the way what the bleep is a cfl? 

And, this just in.  (:>)

San Francisco has banned plastic grocery bags.  Yes, for those of us old enough to remember paper bags, well, they’re making a comeback.  Turns out paper is biodegradable and plastic just sits in the landfill and vegetates.  Yes, I know we were supposed to recycle the plastic, but have you noticed that the big bins for plastic bags have been disappearing over the years.  Turns out some yahoos (not to be confused with the internet giant) have been disposing of needles and other unsavory items in the bins for the plastic bags. 

The big push is for us to buy our own grocery bags, which are conveniently sold by a chain store near you.  And, the cost is only $1.00 per bag with the grocery stores logo on it.  The problem as I see it is the bags don’t hold a lot.  If I made a big grocery run and had about 20 plastic or paper bags worth, I’d  probably have to increase that to 30 convenient canvas bags.  Imagine you’re a mother with a few growing children (sons come to mind).  How many bags would you need (Don’t snicker, it’s not polite.)?

 Get the point?  We pass laws; ban things, etc., all in an effort to reduce pollutants, save on the amount of trash we put out, etc., and it all comes back to slap us in the face. 

I’m still waiting for hydrogen fuel cells, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they turned out to cause yet another problem.  The world is full of problems.  I think the way to reduce some of them is to take the route that causes the least amount of damage to man (or woman) and/or the planet.  (The term risk analysis comes to mind.) Apparently, some of our solutions have done the opposite and had unintended consequences.

What’s the old saying.  Back to the drawing board.

The Law of Unintended Consequences Part II

I read Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and I believed.  I supported the ban on DDT

Now, I’m reading other literature on the sharp rise in deaths in 3^rd World Countries from Malaria.  Another unintended consequence.

Prior to the ban on DDT Sri Lanka’s deaths from malaria had dropped from a 720,000 per year to 1,500 per year, but in 1972 the EPA banned the use of DDT and the rest of the world followed.  Deaths from Malaria worldwide rose to 8.2 million per year.

Experts have discovered that it was not DDT itself, but the overuse of DDT that contributed to so many problems.  So why the total ban.  Part of it was no doubt caused by people like me who read Silent Spring and believed, but was there another more insidious reason.  Population control.  A check of the writings (rantings) of some environmental activitists.give the following clues.     An essay in Earthbound advocates, massive human die offs……"to eliminate 90% of our numbers."  And in 1989 Earth First an environmental newsletter called AIDS a way to bring the human population back to sanity with the possibility to end industrialism, which it says caused the environmental crisis.

So why the push to fight AIDS from the very liberals/environmentalists that belong to the above mentioned groups.  Well, for one thing AIDS kills off people who aren’t likely to reproduce anyway.  Now Malaria.  That’s a disease that kills off the reproducers. 

I know what you’re thinking,  there is a big campaign, “Nothing but Nets” with PSA’s on TV.  Problem.  Nets only work at night.  What about all the kids who go out to play during the day?  While mosquitoes aren’t as prevalent during the day, they’re still around by riverbanks and lakes, in the marshes, places where kids (and adults) go during the day.

You’re also thinking about all the birds that were saved.  Didn’t DDT thin bird eggshells reducing the population of a lot of species of birds?  There are questions about the tests of eggshells, but even if they were accurate there are two answers.  First the new advocates for DDT want to limit the spraying to smaller areas, with less DDT used.  The problem may not have been the DDT, but the massive amounts used.  And, when push comes to shove even if small amounts of DDT make birds shells thinner, if I could save millions of kids, let me think about it. 

Third World countries don’t have that option, though.  Europe especially will not accept products from countries that use DDT.  That’s a big economic impact for someplace like Sri Lanka, India or any country in Africa.  That may be economic blackmail, but it exists and it works.

How does that affect us?  Well, West Nile Virus and Malaria are on the increase in the US and so are bedbugs.  Yes, bedbugs.  DDT wasn’t the sole factor, but it did help wipe out bedbugs, but they’re on the rise again.  Major metro newspapers are reporting stories about people who stay in hotel rooms infested with bedbugs and the worst thing is the little buggers burrow into any wood in the room come out at night and bite you.  And you can bring them home with you.  The problem is even worse in Europe than it is here, but it’s coming to a hotel or motel you may be staying at right here in the USA.

And, on a personal note, my husband’s summer job while in college (years ago) was spraying DDT for a major mosquito control company in the Midwest.  He says he was an “insecticidal maniac” for two years.  The only side effect of the DDT surrounding him 50 years later is mosquitoes (bugs of any kind) don’t go near him.  I wish I had that side effect.

I’ll ask you again.  Do you prefer mosquitoes or kids?  Frankly, I like the kids.  They can be pesky and blood suckers, but they are also cute, cuddly and loving.  I’m weighing it.  The possibility of thinner eggshells or millions of dead people.  Sorry, I still prefer the people.