I heard there’s a new book out called “The Real Inconvenient Truths” something about several looming environmental catastrophes liberals don’t ever want to talk about because they caused them.
I haven’t seen the book yet, and as such, I make this wager here: I’ll wager that one of the looming environmental catastrophes liberals have “caused” – and, if I’m wrong, I will admit publically that I am a raving lunatic – and, if I’m right, I will admit publically that I’m a raving lunatic who gets it right now and then – that one of the looming environmental catastrophes liberals have “caused” will be that we got DDT banned. They will go on to explain how, because of that, disease carrying insect populations are about to explode. Mosquitoes, for example, have spread Malaria which has killed great numbers of people. And mosquitoes populations are now moving Northward. Have I got your attention about the liberal menace here?
And you know what? Bed bugs are making a huge comeback. You only vaguely remember something from your grandparents day about bed bugs. Why? DDT. Now, bed bug populations are making a come back into American cities, and their populations are about to explode, and they will then become a wide channel for spreading disease. One of the factors by which life expectancy steadily increased over the 20th century will be removed.
Liberals, though, had DDT banned, not out of rationality but out of feel-good emotions about nature, will be the charge, I bet. Now there is a looming environmental problem that liberals have caused here, which they won’t ever talk about. No, they will cower like the slobbering sniveling creeps they are and slink away from that responsibility.
Yadda yadda yadda
One liberal’s response to that imagined charge:
Let’s be candid here a minute. That is what we’re about here, isn’t it? Let’s cut the crap and just get to what is when what is is a knowable thing. Seem like a reasonable proposition to you? What is the case about DDT? Hell, I thought we had that one settled decades ago, but no. The argument has been dug in tact out of its grave and resurrected with complete fidelity to the original of fifty years ago. That’s like you’re in the third grade and then one day you’ve forgotten the alphabet. What, you want a repeat of the first grade here? We’re getting nowhere in carrying these circular arguments that go around in circles forever. We need to get beyond our delusions to what is. What is the case about DDT?
Or, it’s possible that the book is nothing about DDT and I’m a complete raving lunatic chasing my own tail.
Still, my imagined guess about the book got me to thinking that getting to what is has been done before and it ought to be doable again. Maybe, there are some practical things we can do to cooperate in achieving that mutually beneficial exercise, assuming survival of our species can be considered a beneficial common goal that we have in common.
For a question of such complexity we have to recruit the people who can do the math. Wait, let’s back up first though. The problem is, whose experts do we trust? Whose math? Scientific standards have a proven track record of succeeding, but also science can be corrupted to being a device for making smoke so that what is can’t be seen by anyone. The tobacco companies taught us that, and who knows? Maybe the liberals are up to it now in their agenda too. Still, I have to believe that getting missionary proof science is still a doable thing in this country. If not, we’re completely utterly screwed and may as well kiss our asses goodbye. The difference between science that is about what is and science that is about advancing an agenda are standards. I thing I’ve heard is that the standards have been corrupted and so therefore just completely ignore not just a few corrupt scientists but totally ignore an entire branch of science. An entire branch of science is just completely unbelievable now.
On the other hand doesn’t that stance strike you as possibly being a tad self-serving?
We’ve been through this revolving door before of course many times without having gotten anywhere. Let’s try a different approach to this. Let’s back up a bit from arguing the cases of who’s right and who’s wrong, and instead argue about something more fundamental, standards we can agree upon. That’s difficult but doable isn’t it? We can do that much maybe. We can agree on what are our standards.
Once we have common standards, then science can be a useful tool again that we can take seriously and which can be genuinely helpful to us in making intelligent decisions.
What is the case about DDT for example? Well, it was an extremely cheap solution to a number of problems. It had huge economic value. Also, its breakdown components have half-lives of hundreds of years, and these break-down components have the potential to wreck havoc on the biosphere as they accumulate. Course, yes that’s only partly just theory, because the experiment was interrupted without all possible ambiguities about it being perfectly resolved to the satisfaction of some. But do you really actually truly want to return to that experiment on your grandkids?
Just do me one favor first, will you? Let’s do a thorough analysis first. Let’s to endeavor to put aside all delusional thinking and get to what is. Could you humor me on this? Let’s recruit the best in the world to do it, provide them the best tools to do it, and have them analyze the costs and benefits that continued use of DDT would have provided and let’s analyze the costs and benefits of having banned DDT. Using science we can agree upon, let’s make an informed decision.
And while we’re at it, let’s fund some societal science here to study insects and possible means of their control that are compatible with other vital but competing goals, such as in not giving ourselves cancer in our zeal to control insects to take one example.
Being holistic about things, see, isn’t about liberal feel-good emotionalism; it’s a practical necessity.
Full Version: A Model for how Liberals and Conservatives Can Coo
The reason DDT was banned was because of it's effect on wildlife. Back then you hardly saw raptors.
| QUOTE (J Paul @ May 18 2008, 08:49 AM) |
| The reason DDT was banned was because of it's effect on wildlife. Back then you hardly saw raptors. |
Well actually Paul its not as simple as that . You see I personally have done extensive studies , years and years of the most in depth research , yup , so much that I can safely say that DDT is the drug of choice of conservatives .
Republicans are not the party of religious nuts , no sirree , its the party of DDT. Facts you may ask ? OK , there are many of course but the most evident fact is right before your nose and is why you find more Reps in country or rural areas were the use of DDT was most prevalent and why most Dem's are city dwellers .
Its not my fault I'm a Rep , we knew no better at the time , but you cant tell me Dupont didn't know what they were doing . Those dark hearted capitalist did me in years ago , yup , or this very day I might have socialist tendencies and be Democratic normal . Such too regret and hope for I can tell you that much .
Just funning you Paul , but don't tell Chaster , we're Buds and I don't want him to feel sorry for me , I have my pride ya know , even though it has been tainted with poison .
I rather like the idea of a bedbug infestation being the Liberal final solution.
| QUOTE (sayitaintso @ May 18 2008, 06:57 PM) |
| I rather like the idea of a bedbug infestation being the Liberal final solution. |
Yeah well hows about throwing this into this liberal final solution also, millions , Yup I said millions who have or are dieing from malaria and not Nazi death camps this time around .
Sleep well all you feel good people , there will be no Nuremberg trial for you , but if you want someone can arrange a cyanide pill or two for all ya Her Goeringites if your conscience or curse-ed bed bugs keeps you up too late .
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ May 18 2008, 07:52 PM) |
| Yeah well hows about throwing this into this liberal final solution also, millions , Yup I said millions who have or are dieing from malaria and not Nazi death camps this time around . Sleep well all you feel good people , there will be no Nuremberg trial for you , but if you want someone can arrange a cyanide pill or two for all ya Her Goeringites if your conscience or curse-ed bed bugs keeps you up too late . |
Actually the way I heered it is bed bugs are a nuisance and certainly something you wouldn't want around, but they aren't a disease vector. Disease carrying mosquitoes have been moving north because of (dare we say it) warming and that is your main concern with exotic disease.
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ May 19 2008, 02:52 AM) |
| millions who have or are dieing from malaria and not Nazi death camps this time around . |
True, but you're not looking at it in a holistic way there, Yankie.
You see a problem, disease carrying insects, for which we had once had this tool that worked really well. Now we don't have it. The people who took that tool away from us are to blame for the consequences.
You don't consider all the costs of the tool. You don't consider that there might be alternatives to that tool. You don't consider other factors that play a part in the problem. You just take one little piece out of the big picture for the purpose of hitting people over the head with it. Seems to me you're not about actually doing anybody any good.
But even aside from that. Even beyond the question itself and how important it is to get it right is how can we establish a way that the question can be settled? It ought to be doable. What we need to know here, the true costs and benefits of DDT, is complex but knowable to a degree that we can make a competent decision. Before we can settle the argument itself, we need to settle the argument of how the argument can be settled.
You need to lay out to the world a path through your labyrinth by which you are convincable. Or, at least just come out and let us know, hey, they're all dead ends in my labyrinth. Forget about it. You aint getting through to the goal. You're wasting your time. Then, we'll at least know better than to waste our time with you.
I mean with a certain portion of the population that simply is the case. There is no path through the labyrinth. None. Fortunately, there's generally enough people who have some sort of a capacity to get to what is that we have a shot at making competent decisions.
The path through my labyrinth: We establish standards by which science can be vetted to be free of missionary zeal, stupidity, obvious mistakes, smoke, and spin. We recruit people who can do the math. We provide them the computers, satillite photos, whatever assets they need. We get second, third, fourth, fifth, .... but not out to infinity opinions.
Then, we, informed by this vetted science, we weigh in with our value systems as we have represented them within our political systems and try to make some kind of a good faith effort to balance competing values as best we can.
Then, goal. Congratulations. You have penetrated my labyrinth.
I mean, ultimately, it will always be a political decision even on highly technical questions, but let it be a genuinely informed political decision instead of based on some self-serving little piece of the big picture. That's difficult but doable.
Or, if it's not, we're cosmically fornicated.
Got to watch my language. My coarse language seems to inflame poor old Street to flights of deeply convoluted madness. Seems we're all in various stages of recovery from fundamentalist religion. And I make no claim as to who's more far gone.
QUOTE (chaster @ May 19 2008, 10:37 AM)
True, but you're not looking at it in a holistic way there, Yankie.
No offensive now Chas , what did I learn from your post about DDT , not one dang thing , just paragraph after paragraph of fodder not good enough to wipe your butt with . Whats up with you and this idea thinking if you say allot it must mean you know allot ? Go figure .
Here's a quick over view for you Chaster of the history of DDT.
1948 a guy named Muller got credit for improving DDT . It was so affective killing the malaria carrying mosquito's he won a Nobel prize for his humanitarian efforts . Because of DDT malaria was wiped out among the richer nations such Europe and norther America and a good deal of the pacific islands thanks to Uncle Sam .
!962 a lady by the name of Carson wrote a best selling book called "Silent Spring ". This book had a very alarming affect on the world concerning our environment and the use of DDT. A lot of what she claimed didn't pan out as time would eventually show . But the fear was real .
!972 after seven months of testimony both pro and con towards banning DDT a EPA Judge named Sweeny voted NOT to ban DDT .
Two months later the head of the EPA a guy named Ruchelshaus place a ban on DDT , yup even though he never attended one day of trial and its been said he admitted he didn't even read the transcript of this case .
The ban on DDT was determined not so much on science but politics .
Currently there have been articles in the New York times , Wall Street Journal and other media such as ABC News and Fox News calling for the ban too be lifted that I'm aware of .
And of course there is tons of info on the net from credible folks saying the same thing .
Its my opinion after looking at some of these findings that DDT is worth the risk given the millions that are dieing . I base this on what I have looked at , You base your opinion on what ?
I acknowledge my terse attitude with you Chas , But what will you bring to this conversation ? Will it be more fodder ?
OH yeah Chas , You like NPR , you must of missed this this one .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944
| QUOTE |
| You don't consider all the costs of the tool. You don't consider that there might be alternatives to that tool. You don't consider other factors that play a part in the problem. You just take one little piece out of the big picture for the purpose of hitting people over the head with it. Seems to me you're not about actually doing anybody any good. |
No offensive now Chas , what did I learn from your post about DDT , not one dang thing , just paragraph after paragraph of fodder not good enough to wipe your butt with . Whats up with you and this idea thinking if you say allot it must mean you know allot ? Go figure .
Here's a quick over view for you Chaster of the history of DDT.
1948 a guy named Muller got credit for improving DDT . It was so affective killing the malaria carrying mosquito's he won a Nobel prize for his humanitarian efforts . Because of DDT malaria was wiped out among the richer nations such Europe and norther America and a good deal of the pacific islands thanks to Uncle Sam .
!962 a lady by the name of Carson wrote a best selling book called "Silent Spring ". This book had a very alarming affect on the world concerning our environment and the use of DDT. A lot of what she claimed didn't pan out as time would eventually show . But the fear was real .
!972 after seven months of testimony both pro and con towards banning DDT a EPA Judge named Sweeny voted NOT to ban DDT .
Two months later the head of the EPA a guy named Ruchelshaus place a ban on DDT , yup even though he never attended one day of trial and its been said he admitted he didn't even read the transcript of this case .
The ban on DDT was determined not so much on science but politics .
Currently there have been articles in the New York times , Wall Street Journal and other media such as ABC News and Fox News calling for the ban too be lifted that I'm aware of .
And of course there is tons of info on the net from credible folks saying the same thing .
Its my opinion after looking at some of these findings that DDT is worth the risk given the millions that are dieing . I base this on what I have looked at , You base your opinion on what ?
I acknowledge my terse attitude with you Chas , But what will you bring to this conversation ? Will it be more fodder ?
OH yeah Chas , You like NPR , you must of missed this this one .
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ May 20 2008, 02:41 AM) |
| No offensive now Chas , |
Christ, here it comes.
| QUOTE (1 yankie @ May 20 2008, 02:41 AM) |
| The ban on DDT was determined not so much on science but politics . |
It's always going to be a political decision, Yankie. We have a political system for a reason, the reason being that there are dozens of competing values to be balanced. By all means, let's lay out the science, the whole science, not just the little bits and pieces that tell you what you want to hear.
You're missing my point, Yankie. The question is how to make an intelligent decision. How do intelligent people make intelligent decisions? The circular arguments don't cut it. How do we cut the crap and make an intelligent decision?
It's always going to be a political decision, assuming we don't institute a dictatorship of some kind. The goal is for it to be a good political decision. And by good decision, I mean we'll still be in business in a hundred years.
The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15969...howViewpoints=1
The ban on DDT might have saved the live save the lives of a few birds, but it has cost deaths of Africans from malaria. Ethanol increases food prices. The endangered species act creates perverse incentives. There are what we might term as unintended consequences, as far as most environmentalists are concerned. It is important to note, however, that there does exist a lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement, who will interpret part of the results discussed in this book as a job well done.
I am a raving lunatic, who gets it right now and then.
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/15969...howViewpoints=1
The ban on DDT might have saved the live save the lives of a few birds, but it has cost deaths of Africans from malaria. Ethanol increases food prices. The endangered species act creates perverse incentives. There are what we might term as unintended consequences, as far as most environmentalists are concerned. It is important to note, however, that there does exist a lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement, who will interpret part of the results discussed in this book as a job well done.
I am a raving lunatic, who gets it right now and then.
Another example of where, in addition to the question is how to address the question effectively, is another of these lamebrained liberal schemes and dreams, ehtanol.
Here's one such example of typical fuzzy liberal thinking on that subject:
The advent of corn syrup as an ultra low cost sweetner has to be one reason there's chronic obesity in America today. Heck, if ethanol producers make that more expensive, maybe that's not entirely a bad thing.
After all, the type of corn that is grown to make corn syrup and also ethanol has close to zero food value anyway. Better in the cars than in us. It's not so much that ethanol is making food more expensive as mabye making junk food more expensive.
The real driver for soaring food prices, doesn't that just have to be the soaring price of oil?
And wouldn't finding alternatives to oil be one way to bring down food prices? Instead of starting and then stopping and then probably starting the ehtanol program again later on, wouldn't a better strategy be to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, thereby reducing upward pressure on oil prices, thereby reducing upward pressure on food prices.
I'm thinking that corn is only a primer for the ethanol industry anyway. As that industry matures, it will turn to other feedstocks that make more sense but for which the technology still needs development. Kill the ethanol program, though, and you pull the rug out from under that effort.
The worrisome about oil is what sort of a landing will we have as the tank starts to getting toward E. Admittedly, oil is just a wonder substance that even at today's prices is still an incredible bargain. For portable energy, nothing even comes close. Basically, we eat, sleep on, dress up in, drive on, live in, are employed by oil. It's not so much as that we'll wake up one day and oil will be gone as we'll wake up one day and oil will just start getting more expensive and never come down again.
I'd rather that we suffer some today in finding alternatives than suffer a shock that could overwhelm us.
The worrisome thing is several big things are coming at us at once, an end to ever increasing supplies of oil, climate change, population growth, environmental degradation on other fronts, various balloon payments we've arranged for our grandkids so they can subsidize our level of comfort today.
That things look fine today is kind of deceptive. A lot of your societies in the past that collapsed, things were just fine right up until a whloe bunch of stuff started hitting the fan at once. It sort of goes in a pattern. A windfall benefit comes along. People thrive. Populations soar. But all good things come to an end one day. Thing is, as the good thing comes to an end, it's not just going back to the status quo before you got the gift. Now, you've gotten completely utterly dependent upon the gift, plus you've gotent this much larger population too.
Oh a society so amazingly gifted and talented and resourceful as ours could never suffer such a fate. Yeah, well that's what they thought too.
I think it'd be in our interest as a society to be a bit more farsighted than we have been. Not that government is the answer to everything, but government policies need to be a reflection of farsighted thinking.
So why not cut all the energy subsides across the board and let the market place and peoples' good judgement sort out what energy makes sense?
I'm with that. I put my trust in peoples' judgement and in the free market place.
Where the government has a role to play is when you have a challenge that is of such magnitude that you need some societal responses to it. There are occasions where you need capital investments on a scale that you need government programs.
Finding alternatives to oil is one such case of that.
After Pearl Harbor, for example, suppose we'd taken a free market approach to dealing with the challenge. Well, in a way, we did. The government got on the phone to Boeing and said I'd like 8,000 four engine bombers please, and 5,000 fighters, and could you develop the B-29 for us while you're at it?
Here's one such example of typical fuzzy liberal thinking on that subject:
The advent of corn syrup as an ultra low cost sweetner has to be one reason there's chronic obesity in America today. Heck, if ethanol producers make that more expensive, maybe that's not entirely a bad thing.
After all, the type of corn that is grown to make corn syrup and also ethanol has close to zero food value anyway. Better in the cars than in us. It's not so much that ethanol is making food more expensive as mabye making junk food more expensive.
The real driver for soaring food prices, doesn't that just have to be the soaring price of oil?
And wouldn't finding alternatives to oil be one way to bring down food prices? Instead of starting and then stopping and then probably starting the ehtanol program again later on, wouldn't a better strategy be to increase the fuel efficiency of vehicles, thereby reducing upward pressure on oil prices, thereby reducing upward pressure on food prices.
I'm thinking that corn is only a primer for the ethanol industry anyway. As that industry matures, it will turn to other feedstocks that make more sense but for which the technology still needs development. Kill the ethanol program, though, and you pull the rug out from under that effort.
The worrisome about oil is what sort of a landing will we have as the tank starts to getting toward E. Admittedly, oil is just a wonder substance that even at today's prices is still an incredible bargain. For portable energy, nothing even comes close. Basically, we eat, sleep on, dress up in, drive on, live in, are employed by oil. It's not so much as that we'll wake up one day and oil will be gone as we'll wake up one day and oil will just start getting more expensive and never come down again.
I'd rather that we suffer some today in finding alternatives than suffer a shock that could overwhelm us.
The worrisome thing is several big things are coming at us at once, an end to ever increasing supplies of oil, climate change, population growth, environmental degradation on other fronts, various balloon payments we've arranged for our grandkids so they can subsidize our level of comfort today.
That things look fine today is kind of deceptive. A lot of your societies in the past that collapsed, things were just fine right up until a whloe bunch of stuff started hitting the fan at once. It sort of goes in a pattern. A windfall benefit comes along. People thrive. Populations soar. But all good things come to an end one day. Thing is, as the good thing comes to an end, it's not just going back to the status quo before you got the gift. Now, you've gotten completely utterly dependent upon the gift, plus you've gotent this much larger population too.
Oh a society so amazingly gifted and talented and resourceful as ours could never suffer such a fate. Yeah, well that's what they thought too.
I think it'd be in our interest as a society to be a bit more farsighted than we have been. Not that government is the answer to everything, but government policies need to be a reflection of farsighted thinking.
So why not cut all the energy subsides across the board and let the market place and peoples' good judgement sort out what energy makes sense?
I'm with that. I put my trust in peoples' judgement and in the free market place.
Where the government has a role to play is when you have a challenge that is of such magnitude that you need some societal responses to it. There are occasions where you need capital investments on a scale that you need government programs.
Finding alternatives to oil is one such case of that.
After Pearl Harbor, for example, suppose we'd taken a free market approach to dealing with the challenge. Well, in a way, we did. The government got on the phone to Boeing and said I'd like 8,000 four engine bombers please, and 5,000 fighters, and could you develop the B-29 for us while you're at it?
I don't see government and enterprise as separate. Government is just one very very large customer of goods and services. The government is a collective buying agent for us. We buy things through the government when that is the most cost efficient way to buy it.
There's one reason and one reason only for us to buy things through the government. It's cheaper that way. If it's not cheaper, then we ought not do it.
I'm thinking that we have an urgent need here. We need to find alternatives to oil, because, one, it's a fossil carbon energy source and our atmosphere doesn't have an infinite capacity to absorb carbon without expensive consequences, and two, it's going to run out some day. And some day is starting to look a lot like today.
As I see it, the cheapest way for us to develop the technologies for alternatives to oil is through an Apollo moon project like investment coordinated and managed through our government. Then, private industries will take it from there.
One model for that, the microprocessor, which was originally invented through government programs intended to develop extremely light guidance systems for rockets. Today, microprocessors are extremely cheap and are everywhere. Lots of us are employed in looking for problems where they can be a solution. We've done quite well in that effort too. There are four or five in your vehicle and another few dozen in your house. The starting place for that was a government program.
There's one reason and one reason only for us to buy things through the government. It's cheaper that way. If it's not cheaper, then we ought not do it.
I'm thinking that we have an urgent need here. We need to find alternatives to oil, because, one, it's a fossil carbon energy source and our atmosphere doesn't have an infinite capacity to absorb carbon without expensive consequences, and two, it's going to run out some day. And some day is starting to look a lot like today.
As I see it, the cheapest way for us to develop the technologies for alternatives to oil is through an Apollo moon project like investment coordinated and managed through our government. Then, private industries will take it from there.
One model for that, the microprocessor, which was originally invented through government programs intended to develop extremely light guidance systems for rockets. Today, microprocessors are extremely cheap and are everywhere. Lots of us are employed in looking for problems where they can be a solution. We've done quite well in that effort too. There are four or five in your vehicle and another few dozen in your house. The starting place for that was a government program.
QUOTE (chaster @ May 22 2008, 09:23 AM)
It's always going to be a political decision, Yankie. We have a political system for a reason, the reason being that there are dozens of competing values to be balanced. By all means, let's lay out the science, the whole science, not just the little bits and pieces that tell you what you want to hear.
You're missing my point, Yankie. The question is how to make an intelligent decision. How do intelligent people make intelligent decisions? The circular arguments don't cut it. How do we cut the crap and make an intelligent decision?
It's always going to be a political decision, assuming we don't institute a dictatorship of some kind. The goal is for it to be a good political decision. And by good decision, I mean we'll still be in business in a hundred years.
Good question Chaster , but when speaking about the ban of DDT we can learn allot of what not to do it would seem judging now from how emotions and not facts clouded people's reasoning .
If it wasn't so tragic there would be a little irony that the environmental movement's first victory that Liberals trumpeted as a major accomplishment in fact was a sentenced to death for millions who have died because of this very lacking decision. But a big pat on the back should go to the Sierra Club , World Health Organization along with other Enviro groups who finally woke up after smelling the coffee for decades and said , Yes we need to use DDT to stop the deaths .
Another lesson we can learn from this insanity of senseless dieing would have to be
there are no checks and balances within the EPA . The ban on DDT was a one man rule , He alone could over rule what the courts within his own department made judgement on . He basically made a mockery of our judicial system based on two inept studies that were bogus . DDT when used correctly is not a carcinogenic and has no affect on thinning of any bird's shells .
There is a arrogance among the environmentalist as if they should never be questioned or doubted . For each query you Chas have said in these last couple of posts are the very things the environmental movement is guilty of with no exception and yet you preach to me as if its me that doesnt know any better. OH yeah , your arrogance raves on .
Perhaps this will be a reminder to you when your talking down too and telling others what needs to happen, it was your very own environmentalist group who actually made mans environment to the point that millions have died when they didn't have too .
Yeah , You can try to down play all of this , say fancy stuff that sounds good , but you cant change the past , chances are Chaster , I'd say its less than 50/50 you guys will ever fess up and at least say you were wrong and now are sorry , Naw , you've got your pride and the rest of us have the environmentalist to be ashamed of this time around with DDT , yup , for a awful long time .
You're missing my point, Yankie. The question is how to make an intelligent decision. How do intelligent people make intelligent decisions? The circular arguments don't cut it. How do we cut the crap and make an intelligent decision?
It's always going to be a political decision, assuming we don't institute a dictatorship of some kind. The goal is for it to be a good political decision. And by good decision, I mean we'll still be in business in a hundred years.
| QUOTE |
| You're missing my point, Yankie. The question is how to make an intelligent decision. How do intelligent people make intelligent decisions? The circular arguments don't cut it. How do we cut the crap and make an intelligent decision? |
Good question Chaster , but when speaking about the ban of DDT we can learn allot of what not to do it would seem judging now from how emotions and not facts clouded people's reasoning .
If it wasn't so tragic there would be a little irony that the environmental movement's first victory that Liberals trumpeted as a major accomplishment in fact was a sentenced to death for millions who have died because of this very lacking decision. But a big pat on the back should go to the Sierra Club , World Health Organization along with other Enviro groups who finally woke up after smelling the coffee for decades and said , Yes we need to use DDT to stop the deaths .
Another lesson we can learn from this insanity of senseless dieing would have to be
there are no checks and balances within the EPA . The ban on DDT was a one man rule , He alone could over rule what the courts within his own department made judgement on . He basically made a mockery of our judicial system based on two inept studies that were bogus . DDT when used correctly is not a carcinogenic and has no affect on thinning of any bird's shells .
There is a arrogance among the environmentalist as if they should never be questioned or doubted . For each query you Chas have said in these last couple of posts are the very things the environmental movement is guilty of with no exception and yet you preach to me as if its me that doesnt know any better. OH yeah , your arrogance raves on .
Perhaps this will be a reminder to you when your talking down too and telling others what needs to happen, it was your very own environmentalist group who actually made mans environment to the point that millions have died when they didn't have too .
Yeah , You can try to down play all of this , say fancy stuff that sounds good , but you cant change the past , chances are Chaster , I'd say its less than 50/50 you guys will ever fess up and at least say you were wrong and now are sorry , Naw , you've got your pride and the rest of us have the environmentalist to be ashamed of this time around with DDT , yup , for a awful long time .
Here’s my theory on it:
What it is, see, it’s the Hank Williams syndrome.
The Devil comes to you, and here’s the deal. You can shine like the sun briefly, or you can be the responsible citizen.
Environmentalism is the boring responsible citizen.
Hank Williams is hey, let’s party to the hilt until the last drop is gone. Cause I’m a honky tonk man. When I’m all alone, get on the telephone, hey now baby get in my zone.
I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know which choice is best.
What it is, see, it’s the Hank Williams syndrome.
The Devil comes to you, and here’s the deal. You can shine like the sun briefly, or you can be the responsible citizen.
Environmentalism is the boring responsible citizen.
Hank Williams is hey, let’s party to the hilt until the last drop is gone. Cause I’m a honky tonk man. When I’m all alone, get on the telephone, hey now baby get in my zone.
I’ll be honest with you. I don’t know which choice is best.
| QUOTE |
Environmentalism is the boring responsible citizen. |
Yeah , you can say that again , responsible that is, yup, for more than you want to talk about I bet. Or do you want to talk about how responsible the environmentalist have been dealing with deaths caused by malaria and banning the use of DDT ? Well speak up Chas if you do and want to show a little bit of how a responsible person would act just about now .
I cant help but wonder how much the books " Inconvenient truth " and Silent Spring may have in common with each other . Do you think possibly there is a chance another enviro best seller that uses fear as the driving force could also be flawed ?
There happens to be allot in common with these two books , and allot in the balance should the book Inconvenient truth be as environmentally wrong as the book Silent Spring as proven to be .
Just something I've been thinking about for a while , Kinda have too I guess as long as GW remains a theory .