I did a double take seeing KRISTOF advocating the use of DDT. What are the liberals getting common sense? Has anyone heard how the Vietnamese pulled off their trick?
1 posted on
01/07/2005 10:08:17 PM PST by
neverdem
To: neverdem
The libs will soon claim that the ban on DDT was orchestrated by Republicans bent on keeping the impoverished 3rd world under US imperialistic domination.
2 posted on
01/07/2005 10:11:06 PM PST by
REDWOOD99
To: neverdem
NY Times for DDT...Does not make sense to me...Next they will say the election was fair.
3 posted on
01/07/2005 10:12:00 PM PST by
paulr22043
(DDT)
To: neverdem
Digon, used in Mosquito Districts, works really well on mosquitoes.
4 posted on
01/07/2005 10:15:09 PM PST by
writer33
(The U.S. Constitution defines a conservative.)
To: neverdem
Actually, Nader came down on the sane use of DDT, as well.
However, they still won't admit that West Nile is a variant of Malaria hitting the U.S. which should also warrant the consideration of the use of DDT.
To: neverdem
It's a trap. He want's Bush to propose it, so the MSM can tar Bush on DDT just as they did on Arsnic.
Actually, Kristof, in my opinion is a pretty decent guy. His web reports are excellent and unbiased (in my opinion), but once he gets on that editorial page, he jumps into the liberal cesspool.
I'm not surprised to see him write the piece, he's been around the world many times and has seen a lot of suffering. But I would warn Bush not to do a thing until the Libs (including Michael Moore and Sierra Club) step up first and call for DDT. It really looks like a trap.
9 posted on
01/07/2005 10:20:42 PM PST by
BobL
To: neverdem
P.J. O'Rourke pointed out to me the pros & cons of DDT.
To paraphrase, did you want your death quick or slow?
10 posted on
01/07/2005 10:21:01 PM PST by
txhurl
To: neverdem
At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it." Ummm can we get that in writing ??
Oh and can we get his lawyer buddies to put in writting they won't sue us too??
11 posted on
01/07/2005 10:21:22 PM PST by
Mo1
(Does the distinguished Sen from VT wish to act as our treaty rep. for negotiations with Al Queda?)
To: neverdem
12 posted on
01/07/2005 10:24:30 PM PST by
MissouriConservative
( Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less. - Robert E. Lee)
To: neverdem
...one other comment. If DDT becomes accepted again after this tidal wave, then maybe all those deaths will have some meaning. There are a lot more people ready to be saved by DDT than will wind up dying from the tidal wave.
13 posted on
01/07/2005 10:25:08 PM PST by
BobL
To: neverdem; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
15 posted on
01/07/2005 10:32:28 PM PST by
farmfriend
( Congratulation. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
To: neverdem
If they aren't going to use DDT here, they shouldn't use it anywhere.
21 posted on
01/07/2005 10:39:35 PM PST by
cyborg
(http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
To: neverdem
I'm astonished - now if Nicholas D. Kristof would become a neocon, I might applaud him. DDT is one of the safest chemicals known to mankind. And yes, we should save human lives first. The fewer noxious chemicals that have to be sprayed, the safer its for the environment. Bring back DDT!
22 posted on
01/07/2005 10:43:24 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: neverdem; All
24 posted on
01/07/2005 10:46:32 PM PST by
backhoe
(-30-)
To: neverdem
DDT is probably the single best pesticide I've ever used. Why not bring back? It is effective.
27 posted on
01/07/2005 10:54:19 PM PST by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: neverdem
I felt the earth move when I read this from Kristof of the NYT. When I satisfied myself it wasn't an earthquake, I was amazed at the change in position of some of the environuts.
Perhaps the charges that they prefer human deaths to mosquito control are hitting home.
44 posted on
01/08/2005 8:38:06 AM PST by
wildbill
To: neverdem
Do you think Kristof, the newshound that he is, might have happened across
Michael Fumento's piece on the same subject from a week earlier?
Whatever motivated him, it's good to see that at least one "establishment" media type knows the facts about DDT.
To: neverdem
Today's environmentalists suffer from the disease of the left, extremism. This is a simple cost benefit analysis even if one believes that DDT is harmful, not a given especially in the new lower but effective doses.
From the Wall Street Journal editorial:
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas noted the hypocrisy of this position at a subcommittee hearing in October. AID "refuses to support and endorse the use of insecticides," said the Senator, "even when used in small amounts -- much smaller than the mass, airborne spraying that the U.S. implemented to eliminate its own malaria problem decades ago."
DDT works cheap
47 posted on
01/08/2005 2:59:22 PM PST by
dervish
(Europe can go to Islam)
To: neverdem
It's amazing and scary about how many things the press lies about.....I guess it's all about the junk science.
49 posted on
01/10/2005 8:57:12 PM PST by
Stellar Dendrite
(Halliburton razed the rainforests in a fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan -John Kerry '04 /Sarcasm)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson