WhackyNation

One of the most indelible memories of my life is etched as clearly in my mind today as it was when it was formed on that sunny day in Cleveland in 1927. It was the day the legendary Charles Lindbergh visited Cleveland for a hero’s welcome soon after he recorded his historic first flight across the Atlantic in the Spirit of St. Louis, his single-engine aircraft.

The famed aviator was seated in the back seat of a limousine that drove through Cleveland’s Wade Park as thousands cheered. My Dad had hoisted me up on his shoulders so I could get a better look at the smiling, baby-faced Lindbergh. He was not only my hero. He was everybody’s hero.

What a feat it was! Every person in America had followed Lindy’s remarkable flight, which remains to this day one of history’s most dazzling adventures — flying alone across the Atlantic Ocean and landing in Paris in what now seems like a toy aircraft, and he did it without refueling.

The name, Lindy, was on everybody’s lips for years thereafter. Then tragedy struck and Anne and Charles Lindbergh’s first child was kidnapped and murdered. The entire world was horrified by the foul deed, and Congress was moved to adopt a law making kidnapping an act punishable by death.

The trial that resulted in the conviction and execution of Bruno Hauptmann was attended, I’m ashamed to say, by frequently grotesque, stupid coverage by the press, which treated the event as if it were a circus sideshow. It was one of the reasons Lindbergh became a recluse.

It was not only a sad day for Lindy. It was also a sad day for American journalism, as the gossip mongers serving as reporters covered the trial like bloodhounds on the trail of a rabbit.

Later, the heroic flyer would make his way back into the news with a warning concerning the growing air power created by Adolf Hitler and his generals. But he made the political mistake of urging the United States to remain neutral in the Second World War and refuse to become involved.

Virtually all Americans turned against Lindy because of his stand — and because of that trip he had made beforehand to visit Hitler. Lost in the ensuing drama was the report by an unidentified source that Lindbergh had actually gone to Germany to visit Hitler on a secret spying mission sponsored by the American military to assess the air and ground power of the Nazis. That report remains unverified, but since Lindbergh himself always remained a very private person, one may conjecture that it might be true.

From that time on for the rest of his days, Lindbergh withdrew from public life. I think Lindy, who died in 1974, was probably the loneliest and most tragic figure in American history. But he will always be one of the nation’s greatest heroes — particularly to that 8-year-old kid sitting on his father’s shoulders watching and waving that day in Cleveland’s Wade Park as the man who conquered the Atlantic rode by in the limousine.

And, despite the tragedies in Lindy’s life, he remains a national hero to this day to the aging, balding fellow who is writing this.

It’s been about a week since I called on Moveon.org’s candidate for Congress in the 8th District, Darcy Burner, to denounce the over-the-top General Betrayus ad.  It appears she is still ducking the issue, but finally Seattle’s lame, left-of-center, drive-by political reporters are finally seeing the validity of questioning her stunning silence.

Says the Time’s David Postman:

I’ve been largely uninterested in the “debate” over MoveOn.org’s ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus. But, though I’m late to the game, I was surprised to see that congressional candidate Darcy Burner isn’t answering when asked how she would have voted if asked to condemn the ad….

I don’t see the value in asking every member of Congress or every candidate what they think about the newspaper ad. But Burner is clearly a netroots favorite and her most vocal supporters are the very people who have been the most strident in defending the ad.

Postman was way late to the story, which makes me wonder about his ability to ask hard question of Democrat women politicians whether they be Burner, Gregoire, Cantwell, Murray or Sommers.  Postman only jumped aboard the Burner-Betray Us story after he was scooped in the print world by Josh Feit at the Stranger who followed up on a press release issued by State Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser.

Feit writes:

Given that most of our delegation has voted on this (Sen. Murray ‘Nay,’ Sen. Cantwell didn’t vote, Reps. Inslee and McDermott ‘Nay’ and everyone else, including Rep. Dave Reichert, whom Burner is challenging, in favor), I think it’s a fair question to throw Burner’s way. How would she have voted? Gotta take votes if you’re in Congress.

I put the question to her campaign spokesman, Sandeep Kaushik, and here’s what he said:

“Look, her dad is a veteran. Her husband is a veteran. And her brother just got back from Iraq. No one has more respect for the military than Darcy does. Obviously she has a lot of respect for General Petraeus. But there are two things going on here. The Bush Administration has put him in an untenable situation, asking him to find a military solution to a situation that doesn’t have a military solution. And second, the GOP is manufacturing a kind of situational outrage over what really is just an ad in a newspaper to distract people from the question at hand: How do we end this war?”

I asked again: How would Burner have voted?

Kaushik said: “Darcy has a lot of respect for General Petraeus and the difficult job he’s trying to do. And she’s not a fan of name-calling on either side.”

Not an answer. So I asked if I could ask Burner directly. Kaushik said Burner is out of town and “I think we’ll just leave it at that.”

Does Darcy, the purported high techie from Microsoft, not have cell phone?  Apparently taking vacation and hiding behind her campaign manager is her way of ducking the issue.

I got to say Josh Feit, despite his leftist bias, surprises me by showing the stuff of the old school in his ability to see a story and ask the questions.

Feit’s story not only kicked Postman in the butt to finally drive by the story, but got our friend Eric Earling at Sound Politics to weigh in.

In a sense it’s recognition of reality. Local Democratic Members of Congress Baird, Dicks, Larsen, and Smith voted against MoveOn in a vote that inspired the Wrath of Kos. Add to that fact that the public really didn’t like the ad either and it becomes a pretty logical step for someone trying to unseat a successfully re-elected incumbent in a swing-district.

That being said, it really betrays (sorry, couldn’t resist) the Darcy Burner, darling of the netroots, theme we’ve come to know and love. The dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge display from her spokesman, as linked above, in avoiding the question was very inside-the-Beltway in its obtuseness. Hardly the speak-truth-to-power approach we’ve come to expect.

So, the Darcy-the-Duck story is tracking two ways:

The first is the story itself, a legitimate one, asking the sock puppet of Moveon.org whether she would denounce the General Betray Us ad or at least acknowledge it was over the top.

The second is the slow reaction by Seattle’s drive-by media to a legitimate and important story.  Does the drive-by hesitancy suggest a bias to her politics, a fear of angering the Moveon.org blogosphere in the Northwest, or an inability to confront women politicians?  It would be nice to know the answer to this question before the Gregoire-Rossi race heats up.

The new president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, has issued a compassionate statement that has provided strangely mixed feelings on both sides of the border. At a meeting of Mexican leaders and the governors of several states that border Mexico, he asked the U.S. Congress to OK immigration reform that “would allow more Mexicans to work legally north of the border.”

Calderon, who is pro-American in his sentiments, should examine his statement a bit more closely. He should know that for many years, Mexican workers have been welcomed to the U.S. by the thousands by farmers and others who have needed their help with the nation’s agricultural crops.

Those thousands of workers have crossed the border “legally,” Mr. Calderon. They have been a big help, not the problem the millions of “illegal” immigrants have caused in the past few decades. The Mexican president should know that the U.S. has had a quota system for a great many years, a quota regulation that has indicated how many legal Mexicans can cross the border each year.

One of the strangest comments in Calderon’s message to the governors was this one: “Immigration is a natural phenomenon that is economically and socially inevitable. Mexico doesn’t celebrate migration. Our best people are the ones who go.” Really? If they are the best ones, why don’t they apply for legal entry to the U.S.?

Calderon and his contingent at the meeting expressed strong opposition to America’s plan to build a wall at the border to control illegal immigration, as well as to halt the shipment of drugs from Mexico and the entry of criminal gangs of illegals. The wall will be about 370 miles long and will be completed by the end of 2008.

Instead of offering a firm plan for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. in blocking the entry of more illegal Mexicans into America, Calderon and his group said they wanted to concentrate on stopping the illegal flow of U.S. weapons into Mexico, as well as appealing to Congress to cancel plans to build the security wall or fence.

Unfortunately, there are voices on the U.S. side that are agreeing with Calderon and the Mexican government. One of them is that of California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who praised Mexico’s stand and who has opposed the plan for a security wall. Of course, one can see that his stand is politically motivated because of the thousands of Mexicans, legal and illegal, who now live in California.

As could have been expected, environmental extremists also have expressed their strong opposition to building the security fence. Neither they nor the politicos on both sides of the border who have agreed with them have offered a workable plan to stop illegal immigration and to deport those illegals who break our laws.

The news from abroad forces me once again to resort to the “I Told You So” refrain. But so be it. The Washington Post has reported that a Spanish newspaper has revealed that Iraq’s tyrannical dictator, Saddam Hussein, indicated a month before the invasion by U.S. and allied troops that he was willing to go into exile.

It was also reported that Saddam made his offer, provided he “could take with him $1 billion and information on weapons of mass destruction.” The disclosure of Saddam’s offer came late in February, 2003, at a meeting of President Bush and Spain’s prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar.

The report underscores the validity of my comments on two major counts. The first is that it is proof of the contention that Saddam had and/or was developing weapons of mass destruction. And the second is that it bolsters my repeated assertion that, if France, Germany, and Russia had joined us in our invasion threat, Saddam would have had to go into exile — as the Spanish report now reveals.

In my commentaries on the issue, I have stated that France, Germany, and Russia refused to join us in a military move on Saddam and Iraq because the three European nations had lucrative billion-dollar deals with the Iraqi leader and didn’t want to lose their grip on all that loot.

The deals the European countries made with Saddam included shipments of armaments and other war materiel. It’s not surprising that the three nations also had so much clout in the United Nations that the U.N. also pulled back from its demands on Saddam and refused to sanction our ultimate move on Iraq.

Consider how important it would have been for history and for all nations involved if Saddam had been pressured into fleeing Iraq and permitting the U.S. and its allies to conduct a thorough investigation of all regions of Iraq and the records Saddam must have kept concerning his negotiations for nuclear power and a buildup of his war arsenal.

If he had gone into exile, the U.S. would not have had to invade Iraq, along with the forces of 40 other nations. And thousands of Iraqis and American military men and women would be alive today. Finally, the absence of a tyrant like Saddam would have made turning Iraq into a democratic republic a much easier, quicker task.

Furthermore, Saddam in exile would have enhanced the prospects of peace in the entire Middle East and, perhaps, even prevented the attacks, murders, and bombings endured by the people of Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Israel. And Saddam would not have lost his life. If he had known he would be executed, wouldn’t he have made good on his exile offer a lot sooner?

One of the many reasons my wonderful, brilliant old friend, Dixy Lee Ray, and I got along so well in our 45-year friendship was that we were both hopelessly devoted to proposing and developing new ideas in every field imaginable. She was way ahead of her time, thanks to her extraordinary brain power, and so was I, although I don’t profess to have the brain she did.

In Dr. Ray’s case, for example, she tried to popularize such ideas as a two-way water system and the development of much needed energy from such sources as the manure produced by animals in the nation’s vast farmlands. Fortunately, the potential of manure as an energy producer has finally caught on in several regions — but the two-way water system remains just a dream.

It was at least 40 years ago that I first heard Dr. Ray suggest to farm groups that they were ignoring one of many new methods of producing energy. At the time, the proposal to use the fecal matter of cows, horses, and other farm animals seemed like a joke to many farmers, as well as to others. But “cow power,” as it is sometimes called, has become a reality today. Manure digesters are producing electricity and at least two different kinds of fertilizer.

It was also about 40 or 45 years ago that Dr. Ray, a world renowned marine scientist, was invited by the Saudi Arabia government to visit that nation and consider a very lucrative offer to serve as a government scientist, primarily because she was an international expert on desalinization, the process of turning salt water into safe drinking water. Like other Middle Eastern nations, Saudi Arabia was experiencing a severe shortage of clean water. In fact, the Saudis told her clear water was far more precious than oil to the oil-rich Middle East.

As I have related in other commentaries, Dr. Ray went to Saudi Arabia to talk to officials there about their serious water shortage. After two weeks, however, she turned down the Saudis’ offer and returned to her home on Fox Island, Washington. She told me her reason for the rejection was that, after seeing how women were enslaved and so poorly treated in Saudi Arabia, she wanted no part of the long-term offer the Saudis had made her.

However, in addition to the desalinization program she proposed to the Saudi government, she also suggested that all nations of the world, including Saudi Arabia and the U.S., should consider a two-way system of water production and use, in view of the fact that clean-water shortages were being reported everywhere.

As she proposed it, the ingenious system would consist of one water line to provide clean water for drinking, cooking, and bathing and another to offer recycled water for scrubbing floors, washing cars, watering the lawn and the garden, and all the other chores that do not require clean water. In effect, Dr. Ray’s plan would recycle used water from showers, baths, rain runoffs, and many other sources to be used for scrubbing floors, and so forth.

It’s an idea that the U.S. still hasn’t looked at and considered seriously. With water shortages being reported increasingly in many parts of the nation, a two-way water system makes a lot of sense and deserves to be given a lot of consideration, especially by the large urban areas, where the shortages are most alarming.

My old friend and collaborator, the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, was making speeches more than 40 years ago in which she forecast that the energy of the 21st Century eventually would spring from hydrogen. But, she warned, it would never happen unless the U.S. and other nations first agreed to build enough nuclear reactors to produce the needed hydrogen.

The farsighted Dixy, a great scientist in her own right and once chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, knew what she was talking about. Other reliable scientists have since agreed with her and called for a combination of the two entities, nuclear power plants and the production of hydrogen for fueling the entire nation at a much lower cost and with no possible shortages of power.

One would have thought that the U.S. would have embarked on such a dual program a long time ago so that hydrogen energy would already be a going concern. But, no. The environmental fear-mongers, the rabid anti-nuclear clan, and, yes, even many Democrats have unwittingly held up both ends of the needed combination. They have thrown roadblocks into the once ambitious plan to build many more nuclear plants in America, and, thereby, postponed the hydrogen-energy revolution they profess to support.

Simultaneously, environmentalists and anti-nuclear forces in Europe have persuaded European nations to champion hydrogen energy on one hand but to oppose the construction of more nuclear-power plants on the other! It is grossly idiotic! They can’t have one without the other!

It is not surprising that one of the loudest and most obnoxious voices behind the campaign to persuade European nations to oppose building more nuclear plants was one Jeremy Rifkin, a Neo-Luddite who has been a loud and deeply misinformed voice that opposes any advances in technology, biotechnology, anything nuclear, and, in fact, anything that smacks of future progress.

The U.S. has championed the need for more nuclear power to create the hydrogen energy of the future. But loud-mouthed Rifkin called the American position “a Trojan horse,” according to the Associated Press.

“While the European Union understands that much of the hydrogen will have to be extracted from fossil fuels in the immediate future, its long-term game plan is to rely increasingly on renewable sources of energy to extract hydrogen,” Rifkin told the Associated Press.

It’s proof that Rifkin didn’t know what he was talking about, as usual. If the world relies on the use of fossil fuels, it will never have nearly enough hydrogen fuel power for even a small portion of the nations’ needs. When will we stop listening to these crackpots and start relying on our reputable scientists?

It has already been determined by reliable sources that all religions in the U.S. — and also abroad — are experiencing similar problems concerning clerics who have broken religious rules and the law by forcing sexual abuses of various kinds on lay people, many of them youngsters.

The public should be informed about these cases, of course. But why have the American news media, print and broadcast, concentrated so heavily on those cases involving the Catholic Church?

On occasion, a report here and there mentions such abuses in other religions, but they are usually brief and not given bold headlines in newspapers and featured positions in TV and radio newscasts. However, newspapers and TV/Radio spend considerable space and time — and do it almost daily — when the report details abuses within the Catholic Church.

Is there a conscious determination on the part of many members of the news media to target the Catholic Church? Is there a growing anti-Catholic campaign taking root in the 50 states?

I’m not sure it can be properly characterized as a “campaign,” but what is one to think when articles about improprieties in the Catholic Church go on and on in detail and are given bold headlines and, often, Page 1 positions in the daily papers or are heard at the top of the news on the TV and radio newscasts?

No Catholic will contend that the situation is not serious within the church. It most assuredly is. And it is costing the churches and their members millions in damages — and will cost many more millions before the offending priests and bishops are banished from the church.

But all Catholics are beginning to wonder why the news media are giving the subject such lopsided coverage to the detriment of the Catholic Church — and why the abuses in other churches and synagogues are being ignored or played down? If the unfair treatment continues much longer, I have a prediction, a prediction that should scare Hell out of all the news media, if you’ll pardon my use of a religious theme.

The Catholic Church is the largest religious body in America. If the apparent anti-Catholic bias continues to show itself in the print and broadcast media, a potential boycott could result in the financial ruin of a great many newspapers and broadcast stations.

I hope it never happens, but if it does, we should not be surprised.

Reacting to the complaints of the millions of computer users, Microsoft, America Online, Earthlink, and Yahoo began filing lawsuits a few years ago against the so-called spammers who have littered the Internet with their pitches.

Those pitches have included examples from the bottom of the raunchy barrel, including how to obtain breast enlargements, how to add inches to penises, how to clean out a septic tank, how to plan a vacation, how to obtain a loan, how to meet attractive ladies, and Lord knows what else. But the worst of them all, by far, are the endless pornographic pitches that offer all types of the most disgusting sexual practices and porno movies.

Legal observers said the big computer companies would have little luck in blocking spam with their lawsuits, because they believed there was no legal way to stop the onslaught of ads on the Internet. But something must be done — and can be done — to block the miserable porno ads, which any child can access on a computer. And children in America know how to operate the computers!

So how can the porn be eliminated from the Internet? Easy. The Internet can learn a partial lesson from the movie industry, which created a rating system close to 50 years ago for all films, whether made in the U.S. or in foreign countries. I was a movie critic for The Seattle Times then, and I championed the new rating system and still do, although I will admit the ratings hedge a bit and let quite a bit of nudity and sex get by in the films rated OK for children and families.

The trouble with the movie system is that it is only advisory for parents and does not keep youngsters from entering the offending movie house. The objective was and should have been to keep youngsters 16 and under from entering any movie house showing an X-rated or otherwise offending film. That restriction should be applied today.

Now, in the case of the Internet, this truth should be recognized: Children of all ages are operating computers and can easily examine and download any of the e-mail porn come-ons that appear on the Internet screen. Only an alert parent can stop them, and most parents aren’t around when Junior or Little Sally is clicking away.

What should be done? First, it should be the policy of all computer servers that any type of porn that appears on the Internet screen should be banned, because the Internet is open to all comers, including children of all ages. I don’t buy the argument that this is a form of censorship, despite the fact that I have fought censorship all my life in the print and broadcast media. Porno has no mitigating circumstances and is not necessary in any way, shape, or form.

An Internet ban is the only way to get rid of the ugly trash. Perhaps the policy could be backed up with legislation passed by Congress and supported by the 50 Legislatures. Why not? We have a right to protect our children, and pornography serves absolutely no useful purpose in our society.

Nobody needs porn for any worthy purpose, and the sooner we get rid of it, the better for our youngsters and for the nation!

Portland is having a bad problem with crime along its light rail route and within blocks of the train stations.

In seeing a presentation on crime from a police officer speaking to a business group he had a map showing the incidents by clusters.

According to the police officer as well as the map the highest crime neighborhoods in Portland all are one block deep off of lightrail.

Considering that Seattle’s mayor has a soft touch for criminals and a like-minded police chief, do you think things will turn out any better for the Emerald City?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured billions into combating AIDS and other diseases, primarily in Africa, has invested $1.14 billion into scientific research designed to find a miracle drug to cure malaria cases, also an extremely serious problem in African countries.

Reporters for the Seattle Times have just detailed the great effort that is being made in Tanzania, Africa to develop that cure. However, it is unfortunate that neither the Times reporters nor the Gates Foundation have devoted any time at all to the real solution to the world’s malaria crisis.

I have written and spoken about that real solution so many times that I am amazed that little or no attention has been paid to it — except in recent times by the World Heath Organization. Instead of spending so much time, money, and effort on finding a cure, which has been totally elusive to scientists, the world should be zeroing in on the malaria preventative, which already exists and which once proved extremely effective.

My old friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, and I documented the tragic story of DDT in our book, Environmental Overkill, and repeated it again and again without attracting the attention of American and foreign political leaders. Because it’s so important, I must tell it once more with the hope that it will bring positive action.

Early in the last century, scientists came up with the new insecticide and pesticide, DDT, whose purpose was to be spread over swamps and other lands, particularly in hot climates. After extremely successful testing, DDT was employed in mosquito-infested areas in America’s South and, gradually, in swamplands in many other nations.

Beginning in the 1930s, the deaths from malaria began to plummet markedly wherever DDT was used. Before DDT, the annual world death rate from malaria was at the astounding 3,000,000 mark. Within just a few years late in the 1930s, the yearly death rate was reduced remarkably from 3,000,000 to just a few hundred — and the complete eradication of malaria was in sight before long.

Then, with the publication of Rachel Carson’s scientifically inaccurate book, Silent Spring, the extreme environmentalist camp began a movement to persuade political leaders to ban DDT from use because, they said, they had proof that the insecticide damaged eagles’ eggs, of all fairy tales! It is to the political leaders’ eternal disgrace that they permitted the ban to go into effect — a ban that was copied worldwide.

Within a short time, the world’s malaria death rate began soaring again, until at this date in history, it has risen once more to the 3,000,000-a-year mark. The Gates Foundation should heed the advice of the W.H.O. and legitimate scientists and re-direct its efforts to restoring use of one of the greatest scientific discoveries known, DDT — and to saving 3,000,000 lives a year!

In the meantime, I believe those wacko environmentalists who led the movement to ban DDT in the 1970s should face charges of genocide!

Good on the Investor’s Business Daily:

Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.

On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.” It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man’s use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in “the next 50 years” fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, “could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

Aiding Rasool’s research, the Post reported, was a “computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen,” who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time.

So what about those greenhouse gases that man pumps into the skies? Weren’t they worried about them causing a greenhouse effect that would heat the planet, as Hansen, Al Gore and a host of others so fervently believe today?

“They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” the Post said in the story, which was spotted last week by Washington resident John Lockwood, who was doing research at the Library of Congress and alerted the Washington Times to his finding.

Hansen has some explaining to do. The public deserves to know how he was converted from an apparent believer in a coming ice age who had no worries about greenhouse gas emissions to a global warming fear monger.

This is a man, as Lockwood noted in his message to the Times’ John McCaslin, who has called those skeptical of his global warming theory “court jesters.” We wonder: What choice words did he have for those who were skeptical of the ice age theory in 1971?

Global warming alarmists continue to be exposed for lies and hypocrisy.  Hopefully the American public will get the hoax just in time for the November, 2008, election.

Splashed all over the front of the Seattle Times today is the news feature article headlined, “Gates Foundation tackles a giant that preys on African children.”  Its a newstory documenting the horrors of the disease and efforts to find a vaccine.

But before you start asking yourself, “Could this be a Pulitzer?” ask yourself, “Could the reporter Sandi Doughton find her own ass with her own two hands?”

For Doughton misses the real story about malaria these last 35 years: “Why does the world tolerate a million deaths a year if almost every one of them is avoidable?”

Doughton gets close to answering the first part of the question here:

About 90 percent of those who die from malaria are African children under the age of 5. The World Health Organization estimates malaria kills a child every 30 seconds. At that rate, Seattle’s 46,000 public schoolchildren would be wiped out in about two weeks, and the outrage would reverberate to the highest levels.

But Doughton doesn’t ask the question “Why tolerate all the deaths if they are avoidable.”

The Western World and Seattle liberals don’t give a damn about little black, African babies if they stand in the way of their closely held Mother Earth religion called “Environmentalism.”

Evangelized by Rachel Carson’s debunked Bible, Silent Spring, the hippy baby boomers pressured lawmakers in the 1970’s to outlaw the miracle chemical, DDT, which had all but wiped out malaria deaths.  Carson claimed the chemical was the reason some bird species were threatened, a claim real scientists later said was over-the-top.

But since the world’s non scientific politicians outlawed the chemical, malaria deaths have been averaging a million for the last 35 years.  That’s nearly three times the tragic deaths lost in the Holocaust.  But the people dying now are only black, so that makes it okay for the Seattle liberals and the Sierra Club:

“Better a million black babies dies each year than to admit our ’science’ was wrong.”  By the way, many of the people who think this also preach the world is doomed by manmade global warming.  Same “religion;” same “science.”

Why didn’t Doughton ask the question, “Why not allow limited DDT use in malaria prone areas?” as African health officials have recently asked?  Good question.  It gets back to the two hands and an ass dilemma for her.

I commend Bill and Melinda Gates and their friend Warren Buffett for putting up the millions to battle the disease.  Says Gates,

“This is the time period where malaria can be largely conquered,” he said in an interview. “Whatever it takes, we’re just going to stay at it.”

Whatever it takes, Bill?  Well, my billionaire humanitarian, if you really want to eradicate the disease, why don’t you call for the use of DDT, a simple and inexpensive cure for one of mankind’s worst medical problems?

Sometimes, Bill, pencil and paper do a better job than a computer.  You could do the world a huge, humanitarian favor if you would just ask the question, “Can we use DDT?”