Not to be antagonistic or anything, but did you ever wonder. . . ?

[Coyote]

You keep going back there. As wars go, iraq has gone splendidly. Was taking saddam out an instant fix? Of course not. Will the people be better off governing themselves in the long run? Without a doubt.

Iraq has not gone splendidly - it is at best a holding pattern trying to fix the mistakes we made, because the central government is too weak and ineffective and corrupt to take control. Control is being taken by tribal leaders in tribal areas which is creating the the reality of less violence in those areas but is further weakening any possibility of an effective central government.

Instant fix: I think it's undeniable that the architects of this war (in their think tank equivelant of an ivory tower) had no idea whatsoever of the reality of the culture, political climate, and sectarian divisions within Iraq when they decided to promote an invasion. The package sold to the American people was quick in and out: topple Saddam, the people will love us, and democracy will flourish. At best, that was extremely naive. Democracy needs much more then simple "freedom" to flourish. I think this is evident in many countries where "democracy" has led to genocide, ruthless dictatorships cloaked as democratic regimes, and more.

Are people better off ruling themselves in all cases? I wonder. Do the Iraqi people feel that the current situation - truely one of the most brutal, bloodiest wars in a long time - is better? In a country with more factions and individual warlords seeking personal power through fear and bloodshed - would they rather have Saddam again? They didn't want us to invade. We should have listened. Many people warned of the likelyhood of civil war and anarchy. In an artificial country - with ethnic and religious divisions that are deeply buried and worse - carefully stoked by Saddam to maintain his control - why were our people so surprised at what happened? That once freed from tryanny they would not unite but would instead seek to settle old emnities and carve out their own fiefdems?

I wonder - and have no answer - are people always better off governing themselves or do certain institutions need to be in place first? Look at Russia after the fall of the USSR. It descended into mafia-ruled anarchy. It's gradually pulling out of it...but, because of what? Putin who has systematically dismantled many of the democratic reforms and installed something close to a dictatorship. I'm not defending the old USSR by the way - I'm just pointing out that maybe democracy needs more then "freedom" to flourish.

Modern liberalism in the past half century or so has invented and funded literally thousands of programs. How about you name 10 for me that have worked as advertised and actually improved people's lives in the long run. That is, lifted them up out of poverty and placed them squarely in the mainstream so that they need never look back. And don't try to pass off some anecdotal evidence of individual success that don't represent the norm for any given program.

Rural development and electrification projects such as Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

The national interstate system and road projects.

Fair Labor Standards Act which established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum wage of 40 cents/hour and outlawed most forms of child labor.

Environmental Protection Agency: cleaning up of some of the worst polluted areas of the country, setting clean air standards, and cleaning up waterways.

The point, Coyote, is that the ramifications and consequences can, and are, very often seen and accurately predicted but are ignored by modern liberalism in its headlong rush to change.

I agree in that liberals don't always look at consequences but I disagree in that I think we only see some of the ramifications and, none if we want it bad enough (the war in Iraq being a notable modern conservative example).

Also quite often a trade-off is involved with the question being: where is the greatest good? When it comes to social policies on a large scale - it's very difficult to see the big picture. Right now - we see all this with 20/20 hindsight so it's easy to critisize. We are far removed in time from the immediacy of real starvation and real poverty and endless childbearing that characterized the poor in urban inner cities, rural America, Indian reservations, Appalachia, migrant worker camps - but that doesn't make it any less real and in truth, some of it still exists despite the efforts of these programs.

So...do you do the Conservative waltz: do nothing, stick with the tried and true because we know it works...sort of and we won't take the risk of something different" Or do you do the Liberal tango - what the hell, jump in with all the best intentions and try to fix it, to hell with consequences we'll deal with that later?"

There's merits to both.

 

[palerider]

The author was Patrick Moynihan. I don't know the name of the book but here is a report that he authored in 1965 while he was the assistant secretary of labor for the kennedy administration. While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, he was dead on with regard to the black family and what the sort of welfare system the democrats of the day had planned was going to do.

The sheer numbers of "i told you so's" that patrick could have tossed about is staggering. And keep in mind that he was a bleeding heart liberal. Conservatives of the day predicted much the same consequences and were ignored out of hand but now all these years later, their predictions have proved to be right except that even the conservatives of the day couldn't forsee the magnitude of the problems the welfare state would cause.

Considering their long and illustrious record of being able to apply common sense to a program and predict the results with a remarkable degree of accuracy, one must wonder why the predictions of conservatives are always disregarded. cough...coug socialized health care...cough.

 

[Coyote]

First - we need to clear up something. Democrat doesn't always equal Liberal and Republican doesn't always equal conservative. Parties have changed their political ideologies and stances numerous times during their long existance. Just because they are one way now doesn't mean they always were. If we are going to talk Democrats and Republicans - talk that. If we are going to talk conservatives and liberals, lets leave the political parties out of it becuase it is deceptive.

For the record, the love canal is, and always has been controlled by democrats. In fact, if you care to look, you will find that some of the most polluted places on earth are in socialist countries.

What brought about Love Canal was a lack of any sort of regulation on pollution and it's consequences by corporation and an unwillingness to enforce any sort of accountability on them. Regulation is typically associated with liberals - less regulation with conservatives.

Then you are also being disengenius with your second paragraph.

Some of the most polluted places on earth are in former communist countries.

Some of the least polluted places are in those primarily socialist countries with strong environmental laws and regulations in place.

So what does that say? It says you are being a wee bit deceptive by leaving out a lot of information in an attempt to label it a "liberal" problem.

Communist countries in their headlong rush to industrialize disregarded the environmental and public health repercussions of industrialization. We did the same. Now they are having to face the consequences of this and it's pretty damn grim. The fact that the countries were communist does not mean their every action was "liberal". This is the fallacy.

Would that be due to the fact that they were dependent upon government for their daily bread in the first place?

And what happened to them before the government helped? Mental illness is ugly. It's hard to help them and they have few adorable poster kids. They frequently slipped between the cracks and have seldom been able to support themselves. What exactly would you propose? These - along with the elderly, disabled and children are our most vulnerable citizens. As a civilized nation - don't we have an ethical obligation here?


I'll have to try to address some more of this later but - you're making me type too much. Darn conservative!

 

[Coyote]

cough...coug socialized health care...cough.

Sounds like you need a little socialized medicine there buddy....


In all seriousness, I'll look up Moynihan - this sounds interesting.

I am not supportive of welfare as it now stands - in fact, I feel a major reform (but not elimination) is in order. I'd like to see decisions and programs developed on more local levels...I think.

 

[palerider]

DDT DID thin eggshells. The problem was species used. It affected the eggs of raptors. The studies you cite showed that DDT did not cause eggshell thinning in chickens and Japanese quail and while the study was accurate, some of the conclusions drawn by the general public are not: first it was conducted on gallinaceous birds and second, DDT rather than DDE, a metabolite of DDT which has has been identified as the cause of egg-shell thinning was used.

Daniel W. Anderson (currently at Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology at the University of California-Davis), was one of the original researchers on eggshell thinning. He also agrees that the evidence shows that gallinaceous birds (poultry and fowls), herring gulls, and most passerine (perching) birds aren't as sensitive to DDE as raptors. But even though chickens and quail fed very high concentrations of DDE and an adequate amount of food experienced essentially no eggshell thinning or other reproductive problems, science shows pretty conclusively that it's another story for raptors.

I believe that you wish that it were true but it just isn't. Even if it were, however (which it isn't) would saving raptors been worth the millions upon millions upon millions of human deaths that have resulted from the ban on DDT?

Here are some DDT facts as it relates to eagles.

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.
[Van Name, WG. 1921. Ecology 2:76]

Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942.
[Anon. Science News Letter, July 3, 1943]

The bald eagle had vanished from New England by 1937.
[Bent, AC. 1937. Raptorial Birds of America. US National Museum Bull 167:321-349]

After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.
[Marvin, PH. 1964 Birds on the rise. Bull Entomol Soc Amer 10(3):184-186; Wurster, CF. 1969 Congressional Record S4599, May 5, 1969; Anon. 1942. The 42nd Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Magazine 44:1-75 (Jan/Feb 1942; Cruickshank, AD (Editor). 1961. The 61st Annual Christmas Bird Census. Audubon Field Notes 15(2):84-300; White-Stevens, R.. 1972. Statistical analyses of Audubon Christmas Bird censuses. Letter to New York Times, August 15, 1972]

No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.
[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDE residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]

Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues.
Data from Krantz, WC. 1970. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 4(3):136-140.
State Thickness (mm) DDE residue (ppm)
Florida 0.50 About 10
Maine 0.53 About 22
Wisconsin 0.55 About 4


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."
[Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200]

Wildlife authorities attributed bald eagle population reductions to a "widespread loss of suitable habitat", but noted that "illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles."
[Anon.. 1978. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Tech Bull 3:8-9]
Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
[Reichel, WL. 1969. (Pesticide residues in 45 bald eagles found dad in the U.S. 1964-1965). Pesticides Monitoring J 3(3)142-144; Belisle, AA. 1972. (Pesticide residues and PCBs and mercury, in bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1969-1970). Pesticides Monitoring J 6(3): 133-138; Cromartie, E. 1974. (Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in 37 bald eagles found dead in the U.S. 1971-1972). Pesticides Monitoring J 9:11-14; Coon, NC. 1970. (Causes of bald eagle mortality in the US 1960-1065). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 6:72-76]

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists linked high intake of mercury from contaminated fish with eagle reproductive problems.
[Spann, JW, RG Heath, JF Kreitzer, LN Locke. 1972. (Lethal and reproductive effects of mercury on birds) Science 175:328- 331]

Shooting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot were ranked by the National Wildlife Federation as late as 1984 as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
[Anon. 1984. National Wildlife Federation publication. (Eagle deaths)]

DDT as it relates to falcons.

The decline in the U.S. peregrine falcon population occurred long before the DDT years.
[Hickey JJ. 1942. (Only 170 pairs of peregrines in eastern U.S. in 1940) Auk 59:176; Hickey JJ. 1971 Testimony at DDT hearings before EPA hearing examiner. (350 pre- DDT peregrines claimed in eastern U.S., with 28 of the females sterile); and Beebe FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages]

Peregrine falcons were deemed undesirable in the early 20th century. Dr. William Hornaday of the New York Zoological Society referred them as birds that "deserve death, but are so rare that we need not take them into account."
[Hornaday, WT. 1913. Our Vanishing Wild Life. New York Zoological Society, p. 226]

Oologists amassed great collections of falcon eggs.
[Peterson, RT. 1948. Birds Over American, Dodd Mead & Co., NY, pp 135-151; Rice, JN. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 155-164; Berger, DD. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 165-173]

The decline in falcons along the Hudson River was attributed to falconers, egg collectors, pigeon fanciers and disturbance by construction workers and others.
[Herbert, RA and KG Herbert. 1969. In Peregrine Falcon Populations, Univ. Of Wisconsin Press, pp 133- 154. (Also in Auk 82: 62-94)]

The 1950's and 1960's saw continuing harassment trapping brooding birds in their nests, removing fat samples for analysis and operating time-lapse cameras beside the nests for extended periods of time), predation and habitat destruction.
[Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Statement before Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, March 16, 1972; Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada). Condor 70:149-153; Enderson, JH.. 1972. (Time lapse photography in peregrine nests) Living Bird 11: 113- 128; Risebrough, RW. 1970. (Organochlorines in peregrines and merlins migrating through Wisconsin). Canadian Field-Naturalist 84:247-253]

Changes in climate (higher temperatures and decreasing precipitation) were blamed for the gradual disappearance of peregrines from the Rocky Mountains.
[Nelson, MW. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 61-72]

Falconers were blamed for decimating western populations.
[Herman, S. 1969. Peregrine Falcon Populations, University of Wisconsin Press]

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

During the 1960's, peregrines in northern Canada were "reproducing normally," even though they contained 30 times more DDT, DDD, and DDE than the midwestern peregrines that were allegedly extirpated by those chemicals.
[Enderson, JH and DD Berger. 1968. (Chlorinated hydrocarbons in peregrines from Northern Canada) Condor 70:170-178]

There was no decline in peregrine falcon pairs in Canada and Alaska between 1950 and 1967 despite the presence of DDT and DDE.
[Fyfe, RW. 1959. Peregrine Falcon Populations, pp 101-114; and Fyfe, RW. 1968. Auk 85: 383-384]

The peregrine with the very highest DDT residue (2,435 parts per million) was found feeding three healthy young.
[Enderson, JH. 1968. (Pesticide residues in Alaska and Yukon Territory) Auk 85: 683]

Shooting, egg collecting, falconry and disruption of nesting birds along the Yukon River and Colville River were reported to be the cause of the decline in peregrine falcon population.
[Beebe, FL. 1971. The Myth of the Vanishing Peregrine Falcon: A study in manipulation of public and official attitudes. Canadian Raptor Society Publication, 31 pages; and Beebe, FL. 1975. Brit Columbia Provincial Museum Occas. Paper No. 17, pages 126-144]

The decline in British peregrine falcons ended by 1966, though DDT was as abundant as ever. The Federal Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded "There is no close correlation between the declines in populations of predatory birds, particularly the peregrine falcon and the sparrow hawk, and the use of DDT."
[Wilson report. 1969. Review of Organochlorine pesticides in Britain. Report by the Advisory Committee on toxic chemicals. Department of Education and Science]

During 1940-1945, the British Air Ministry shot about 600 peregrines (half the pre-1939 level) to protect carrier pigeons. Peregrine falcon and sparrow hawk egg shells thinned in Britain prior to the use of DDT.
[Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210; Redcliff, DH. 1970 J Applied Biology 7:67; and Redcliff, DH. 1967. Nature 215: 208-210]


And here is some general information with regard to birds, thin eggs, and DDT.


Oil has been associated with egg shell thinning.
[Anon. National Wildlife Federation, Conservation News, pp. 6-10, October 15 1979. (Embryonic mortality from oil on feathers of adults birds) ; Hartung, R. 1965. J Wildlife Management 29:872-874 (Oil on eggs reduces hatch ability by 68 percent); Libby, EE. 1978. Fish, wildlife and oil. Ecolibrium 2(4):7-10; King, KA et al. 1979 Bull Environ Contam Tox 23:800-805 (Oil a probably cause of pelican mortality for six weeks after spill);Albers, PH. 1977. Fate and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems, Pergamon Press, N.Y. (Chapters 15 & 16; Dieter, MP. 1977. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program Report, pp. 35-42 (5 microliters of oil on fertile egg kills 76 to 98 percent of embryos within; birds ingesting oil produce 70 percent to 100 percent less eggs than normal; offspring failed to develop normal flight feathers); Szaro, RC. 1977. Proc 42nd N Amer Wildlife Nat Resources Conference, pp. 375-376]

Lead has been associated with egg shell thinning.
[Bellrose, RC. 1959. Ill Nat Hist Survey Bull 27:235-288 (Lead poisoning in wildlife)]

Mercury has been associated with egg shell thinning.
[D'Itri, FM & PB Trost. 1970. International Conference on Mercury Contamination, Ann Arbor, September 30, 1070; Scott, JL et al. 1975. Effects of PCBs, DDT and mercury upon egg production, hatch ability and shell quality. Poultry Sci 54:3350-368; Stoewssand, GS et al.. 1971. Shell- thinning in quail fed mercuric chloride. Science 173:1030-1031; Tucker, RK. 1971. Utah Science June 1971:47-49 (Effects of many chemicals on shell thickness).; Tucker, RK & HA Haegle. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5:191-194]

Stress from noise,fear or excitement and disease are associated with egg shell thinning.
[Scott, HM et al.. 1944. (Physiological stress thins shells) Poultry Science 23:446-453; Draper, MH & PE Lake. 1967. Effects of stress and defensive responses. In Environmental Control in Poultry Production, Oliver and Boyd, London; Reid, BL. 1971. (Effects of stress on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971; Sykes, AH. 1955 (Adrenaline excess inhibits shell formation) Poultry Science 34: 622-628]

Older birds produce thinner shells.
[Sunde, ML. 1971 (Older birds produce thinner shells) Farm Technology, Fall 1971]

Normal egg shells become 5 percent thinner as developing embryos withdraw calcium for bone development.
[Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1967. Biochemistry of the Avian Embryo, Wiley & Sons, N.Y.; Simkiss, K. 1967. (Shells thinned by embryo development within) In Calcium in Reproductive Physiology, Reinhold, NY, pp 198-213]

Dehydration is associated with thinner egg shells.
[Tucker, RK and HA Haegle. 1970. (30 percent thinner shells formed after quail were kept from water for 36 hours) Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 5(3): 191-194]

Temperature extremes are associated with thinner egg shells.
[Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff, 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons]

Decreased illumination is associated with thinner egg shells.
[Peakall, DB. 1970. (Shells not thinned even after illumination was abruptly reduced from 16 hours daily to 8 hours daily and high DDT dosage begun simultaneously) Science 168:592-594; Day, EJ. 1971. (Importance of even illumination on laying birds) Farm Technology, Fall 1971;Houser, EJ. 1962. Pacific Poultryman, August 1962; Morris, TR et al. 1964. (The most critical area of light duration is that between 16 hours and 8 hours daily) British Poultry Science 5: 133-147; Ward, P. 1972 (Physiological importance of photo period in bird experiments) Ibis 114: 275]

Human and predator intrusion is associated with thinner egg shells.[/B][Beatty, RG. 1973. The DDT Myth, John Day Co., N.Y. 201 pages; Anon. 1971. Hawk Chalk 10(3):47-57; Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Univ Calif Publ Zool 63(3): 151-290]

Simple restraint interferes with the transport of calcium throughout the body of birds, preventing adequate calcium from reaching the shell gland and forming good shells.
[Sykes, AH. 1955. Poultry Science 34:622-628]


Uncovering eggs after parent birds are removed or frightened off exposes eggs to potentially fatal chilling, especially in northern or high altitude locations.
[Cade, TJ. 1960. Ecology of the peregrine and gyrfalcon populations in Alaska. Uni Calif Publ Zool 63(3):151-290]

Phosphorus deficiency is associated with thinner shells.
[Crowley, TA et al. 1963. Poultry Science 54: 350-368]

Calcium deficiency is associated with thinner shells.
[Greely, F.. 196 (Effects of calcium deficiency) J Wildlife Management 70:149-153; Romanoff, AL and AJ Romanoff. 1949. The Avian Egg, Wiley & Sons; Scott, ML. 1975. Poultry Science 54:350-368; Taylor, TG. 1970. How and eggshell is formed. Scientific American 222:89-95; Tucker, RK and HA Tucker. 1970. Bull Environ Contamin Toxicol 5(3):1191-194]

Egg shell deficiencies were attributed to DDT and DDE by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers even though the birds had been placed on low-calcium diets.
[Bitman, J et al. 1969. Nature 224: 44-46; Bitman, J et al. 1970. Science 594-595. ]

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

DDT was blamed for egg shell thinning even though a known egg shell thinner (dieldrin) was also added to the diet.
[Porter, RD and SN Wiemeyer. 1969. Science 165: 199-200]

No significant correlation between DDE and egg shell thinning in Canadian terns even though the eggs contained as much as 100 parts per million of DDE.
[Switzer, BG et al. 1971. Can J Zool 49:69-73]

So, Rachel Carson was wrong in that it assumed all birds at risk but she was right to point out that so many of these pesticides that we took for granted - so much so we practically bathed in it and used it indiscrimminantly -have serious repercussions attached to them. No one thought about that before.

Yes, racel carson was wrong. Wrong with regard to raptors and wrong with regard to all other birds. And once again, let me ask. Even if she had been right, would saving the effected birds have been worth the loss of so many millions of human lives?

However, it is correct in that it put raptors at risk.

See above. Eagles, falcons, etc are raptors.

Now, I'll bring up something which you brought up in another debate when we discussed the birth control pill as an abortificant. You mentioned that is should be banned despite the fact it is one of the best and safest contraceptives for a woman to use. One of the reasons was if it were banned it would spur science to do research to find equally effective alternative methods. Now my question to you is - why not apply this same practicality to DDT? Shouldn't banning it have produced a flurry of science to create a better and safer pesticide?

No, because in the end, it was just "those brown people" who were dying in their millions upon millions. Had malaria ever become a real problem in the industrial world, the ban on DDT would have been lifted and or a new insecticide developed. The problem with your analogy, however, is that DDT didn't do any of the things it was claimed to have done. It was, and remains to this day one of the most effective and safest insecticides for mosquitoes.

The other hidden part of this problem - another unintended consequence to heavy pesticide use is resistance in insect populations. Would not DDT face that with continued heavy use rather than judicial use?

Not likely because of the chemical nature of DDT. DDT was used for a very long time and no resistance was ever noted.

 

[palerider]

Iraq has not gone splendidly - it is at best a holding pattern trying to fix the mistakes we made, because the central government is too weak and ineffective and corrupt to take control. Control is being taken by tribal leaders in tribal areas which is creating the the reality of less violence in those areas but is further weakening any possibility of an effective central government.

Place iraq in the context of other wars, and it is going very well.

I'm just pointing out that maybe democracy needs more then "freedom" to flourish.

Time and patience. Two things that liberals are severely lacking. If it doesn't give you instant gratification, you aren't interested.

Rural development and electrification projects such as Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Pure captialism. Those people were consumers who were not connected. Hardly a liberal program.

The national interstate system and road projects.

The interstate was a department of defense program. Not liberal in any way. The interstates were designed to the specifications necessary to move heavy military equipment and munitions across distances and high speeds.

Fair Labor Standards Act which established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum wage of 40 cents/hour and outlawed most forms of child labor.

Who did this lift out of poverty?

Environmental Protection Agency: cleaning up of some of the worst polluted areas of the country, setting clean air standards, and cleaning up waterways.

Who did this lift out of poverty? I am embarrassed foryou coyote. Out of the thousands and thousands of programs invented and funded by liberals, you only come up with 4 and two of those don't qualify and the other two didn't meet the requirements of the question?

I agree in that liberals don't always look at consequences but I disagree in that I think we only see some of the ramifications and, none if we want it bad enough (the war in Iraq being a notable modern conservative example).

Don't always? Try never. And in the end, a stable iraq governing itself will benefit the whole region. It is far to early to pass judgement on the end results of iraq.

So...do you do the Conservative waltz: do nothing, stick with the tried and true because we know it works...sort of and we won't take the risk of something different" Or do you do the Liberal tango - what the hell, jump in with all the best intentions and try to fix it, to hell with consequences we'll deal with that later?"

If a thing works, exactly why does it need to change?

And look at the social ills we are dealing with as a result of headlong change. We have plenty of consequences but no solutions. Only headlong rush into more change. Liberals keep doing the same thing getting the same results but somehow expect different results next time. You know what they say about such a mindset don't you?

There's merits to both.

Exactly what is the merit to rushing to change headlong without first considering the consequences? What is the merit to a "to hell with the consequences, we'll deal with that later" mind set?

 

[palerider]

Who was the author by the way and what was the book? I would be curious to read it someday.

Here is a link to the report that the book later came from. It is short, sweet, and to the point and covers the content of the book very well.

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

 

[Coyote]

I believe that you wish that it were true but it just isn't. Even if it were, however (which it isn't) would saving raptors been worth the millions upon millions upon millions of human deaths that have resulted from the ban on DDT?

You've included so much information - it will take me some time to absorb it so - on DDT and eggshell thinning, I will need to look up some more.

But...on this question: would saving raptors been worth etc.....


I'm going to post this in a series of thoughts...

Lets look at long term vs. short term: DDT is a sort term solution to the mosquito problem - the end result of which is always the development of resistant species. The indiscrimminate and wide spread use of DDT (as opposed to limiting it's use to the most needed areas) would hasten this.

In fact, although the publication of Silent Spring definately influenced the 1972 U.S. ban on DDT - reductions were aleady taking place ini its usage over a decade before due to the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.

According to Garrett's 1994 book: The Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance - Paul Russell, a former head of the Allied Anti-Malaria campaign, observed that eradication programs had to be wary of relying on DDT for too long as resistance had been found after only six or seven years.

Here is another example of "unintended consequences" of the liberal overuse of things like pesticides (or, going further antibiotics which is causing a current crisis).

According to Wikipedia:

DDT is a persistent organic pollutant with a half life of 2-15 years, and is immobile in most soils. Its half life is 56 days in lake water and approximately 28 days in river water. Routes of loss and degradation include runoff, volatilization, photolysis and biodegradation (aerobic and anaerobic). These processes generally occur slowly. Breakdown products in the soil environment are DDE (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-dichlorodiphenyl)ethylene) and DDD (1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), which are also highly persistent and have similar chemical and physical properties. These products together are known as total DDT. (thus the problems isn't DDT alone but all it's metabolites)

DDT and its metabolic products DDE and DDD magnify through the food chain, with apex predators such as raptors having a higher concentration of the chemicals, stored mainly in body fat, than other animals sharing the same environment. In the United States, human blood and fat tissue samples collected in the early 1970s showed detectable levels in all samples. A later study of blood samples collected in the latter half of the 1970s (after the U.S. DDT ban) showed that blood levels were declining further, but DDT or metabolites were still seen in a very high proportion of the samples. Biomonitoring conducted by the CDC as recently as 2002 shows that more than half of subjects tested had detectable levels of DDT or metabolites in their blood,[23] and of the 700+ milk samples tested by the USDA in 2005, 85% had detectable levels of DDE.[24]

(I am not going into the human health aspects here because it seems it is contradictory and unclear in part because it is not uncommon for effects to take many years of accumulation to show symptoms and cause/effect relationships may not always be so clear).

DDT is also highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. In addition to acute toxic effects, DDT may bioaccumulate significantly in fish and other aquatic species, leading to long-term exposure to high concentrations.​

So you are saving all these people in the short term at what long term cost for the environment, an environment our children will inherit and have to deal with? When you look at how intricately species of animals/plants/insects/even bacteria are interdependent and interconnected can you justify the senseless destruction of a species - particularly a major group of species - and what unintended consequences might result? Who here is not looking at the big picture?

 

[Jeffrey Neuzil]

A sensible analysis of politics today: identifying the enemy and friend

I am going to give a brief answer to some of what is implied in the above; Looking up my other blogs may help you understand more, especially my link to (myspace and what I have there posted);it may actually "seem" today that liberals are to blame for everythingy, in fact they are co-responsible, and this requires one to read and half-understand—for noboby can fully understand this book—"The Closing of the AMERICAN MIND"—this work makes a convincing argument that the left has been "Neitzscheanized" today, and this has taken place in the universities as a result of profoundly "right wing" forces—and this has been given its impetus by the University of Chicago and postmodernism (only confusedly understood to be left-wing: what rather it has done is present a false dichotimization between left and right and kept us babbling about that, instead of actually critically and intelligently analyzing what is going on—in preparation, on my analysis, for a "right wing" revolution, which my soon dawn: That revolution goes way back to 1933, and the importation to this country, on my view, of radical, possibly fascist supported, elements of Nazi Germany who came here and re-fashioned our government in the image: In other words, although the United states ostensibly won the war, as Leo Strauss argued in his "Natural Right and History"—not explicitly but by implication—America had been deprived in that war of "the Sublimest fruit of its victory"—by the triumph on its soil of its conquerors ideas; that is, in essence what Bloom argued; and this revolution began in 1936, and was, on my analysis, culminated twenty-seven years later with the murder of president Kennedy by right wing forces—forces which proceeded to send their"magic Bullet" sailing through the decade causing it to destroy the idealist movement against the war: Viet-Nam was the fruit of the triumph of the right, and it created an enormous amount of wealth for a small number of oligarchs—who rule even today: What's worse is that they prepared their revolution in the realms of biology and cosmological physics (see my other essays on myspace), and will now attempt to consummate this revolution by destroying our liberal democratic tradition.