by Joel Farnham
"Death by Liberalism: The Fatal Outcome of Liberal Policies" chronicles the various unintended consequences and intended consequences of liberalism run amok. J.R Dunn has done a fine job of listing and showing most of the major problems and fatalities caused by following liberal dogma as defined by FDR's New Deal. Some of them are even listed here at Commentarama. He calls it democide. Murder by government.
Dunn covers the range of Automobile Cafe Standards to Ziedler's discovery of DDT. His insight as to the fatalities caused by the adherence to liberal policies is quite keen. He delves extensively into the background of several liberal policies which have killed people.
He definitively identifies the procedure liberals use to pull one over on the unsuspecting public. Proclaim a crisis, real or manufactured. Blow it all out of proportion. Have popular "experts" explain what is wrong with it and how it will impact the public. Liberal politicians then promise to correct the problem and come up with solutions. These solutions ALWAYS take away some freedoms. Freedom of use of a product, freedom from criminal behavior or even outright freedoms listed in the Constitution.
He starts with crime and how liberals have allowed criminals to become victims of society and how actual victims perpetuate society. Another way of putting it. It wasn't the criminal's fault. It was society's fault.
He next shows how liberals managed to ban DDT. How Roe v. Wade is used as a tool for eugenics. How the environmentalists, using the DDT template, have shoved CAFE standards, generic Asbestos removal, freon bans, and Gaia down our collective throats.
This book is very handy in explaining all this and more. I remember living through these various campaigns and not having the whole information. That is, I remember DDT being banned because it killed insects and in turn killed birds. I never knew overuse, and skewed findings were used to achieve the ban. Same with CAFE standards as well as freon. Roe v Wade was always explained to me giving a woman the right to choose.
This is a somewhat of an annoying book. Mr Dunn maintains that liberalism is an outgrowth of Classic Liberalism. This is what is annoying. In other places and times, it is shown that liberalism indeed takes its name from Classic Liberalism, but liberalism is properly an outgrowth of Marxism.
What J.R. Dunn does with this book is totally dispel the notion that maybe the liberals/socialists will change. He demonstrates without a doubt, in my mind at least, that Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and organizations created by these people and types of people won't change. Plausible deniability is their watchword. Once Obama showed that he is a deeply committed Marxist Ideologue, his protestations, rhetoric and gestures to the contrary should be and must be ignored.
His solutions to liberalism leave something of a foul taste. He doesn't even remark about the Tea Parties. I would feel better about this book if he repudiated some of the solutions as unworthy of Americans. Overthrow to be precise.
This book is a MUST read. I cannot emphasize that enough. It will take you back into recent history. It will expose you to the hidden agenda of FUTURE liberals. Never again will you be duped by Obama and company.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Book Review: Death by Liberalism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Nice review, Joel. It sounds like it gives new meaning to the "never waste a good crisis" quote. I think with the new media, principled conservatives stand a better chance of contradicting the false claims and having those arguments reach the people. That was not the case for many years.
I also feel there are a lot of somewhat liberal Democrats who would not condone such tactics. Hard core ideologues tend to take refuge in the Marxist "end justifies the means" argument.
Joel, Thanks for the review! It sounds like an interesting book and definitely something people should check out. I think the history of liberalism is a history of good intentions leading to horrible policy and disasterous consequences, so this sounds like it could be a handy reference for that!
Thanks Jed,
Before I read this book, I didn't realize how repetitive the crisis procedure is for liberals. Time and again liberals have duped us as to what they are actually promoting. This book lifts that veil.
It also completely blows away any idea that liberalism is good for any country. The author wasn't afraid to name names.
J.R. Dunn is a contributing editor at American Thinker. He is a prolific writer. I am working slowly through his articles. Great reading. :-)
Your welcome Andrew. Anytime.
It is a handy book. I used it to find out about Browner a few days ago. It was about the ban on freon from the asthma inhalers.
Joel, sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to look for it. Great review!
Good point, also, about the distinction between classical liberalism and the current quasi-Marxism posing as liberalism. The former isn't quite conservatism, but it's a lot closer than the bizarre ideology which has usurped its name.
Thanks T_Rav.
This book is a very easy read as well. Handy to use. I am just afraid that Dunn's solutions will be used by MSM to say that he is advocating overthrow of the US. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the left is very capable at pulling things out of context and distorting points an author is trying to make.
Also, Dunn makes no mention of the Tea Parties and how they are attempting to reverse liberalism.
I got it through Amazon. Kindle version.
American Thinker is a great sight, I read their articles all the time. Good review, Joel. Thanks.
Thanks Ed,
I go to American Thinker every day. The authors who contribute to it are relative unknowns. The only complaint I have about them is the comment section is harder to access and comment.
Have you read any articles from Robin of Berkley? She is a recovering liberal psychologist. Her insights into liberal behavior are fascinating.
Pardon my complete ignorance but, maybe since I'm young and haven't lived through tons of crises (knock on wood), in the case of something like asbestos or freon, what would be the ideal situation in terms of combatting the perceived harm (if any)?
(I realize the answer might require a separate article altogether.)
Good review. :-)
I am a big fan of American Thinker. In particular, I've enjoyed Randall Hoven's articles.
Thanks Scott.
First with freon. The ban came about because the perception of Freon was destroying the Ozone Layer. Freon does destroy Ozone, but it only has been demonstrated in controlled experiments in a lab on earth. It has never been demonstrated that freon can travel up into the atmosphere to attact the Ozone layer.
The Ozone layer is a layer of air surrounding the earth. It protects us by absorbing most of the UV rays dangersous to humans.
It was discovered that the Ozone layer thins over the Antarctic. They couldn't figure it out until they realized the Ozone Layer is created by UV rays. Unfortunately, because of Archie Bunker and junk science, Freon was accused as the culprit.
Freon was banned because of this perception. Freon is used in Air conditioners, refridgerators, freezers, hair spray, and paint cans. It also is used in asthma inhalers. The ban excluded inhalers until Browner showed up. She demanded and received a ban on using them in inhalers. People weren't told until they went to buy a new one. The new ones don't work as well, and at least one death has been attributed to the ban.
Asbestos next.
Scott - The "ideal situation in terms of combatting the perceived harm" for say asbestos is that maybe if the science could have been objective and, well, scientific.
Bev, How dare you! Science is always scientific when it reaches a result that lets you reshape society according to your political views! ;-)
Scott, As Bev points out, the first thing you do is run honest tests to verify -- you don't run out and start banning things.
Joel: Well done. It's a book well worth reading and a guide to how liberals get almost everything wrong. There's nothing that business and labor can do that government can't do worse, and at twice the price.
ScottDS,
Asbestos has a problem. There are two types. One is soft and harmless to humans. The other is sharp and dangerous to lungs. Both types have been used in houses because it is an excellent insulator and fire resistant.
If all the ban did was ban the bad asbestos from being used in the future, no one would have a problem with it..... Except enviromentalists.
Both types were banned. They didn't stop there. It was mandated that asbestos be removed from all buildings. The removal caused more lung problems because bad asbestos was released into the air.
The removal wasn't needed, but the perception is that proximity to asbestos closed off in a wall will kill. How can it after it is closed off? Never was explained.
The other part is both types are banned. Totally unnecessary. Good asbestos was also used in brakes. It worked nicely. Since the ban, the manufacturers had to come up with viable solutions. Nothing works as well as asbestos. How many brake failures? No one knows, but changing brake pads occurs more often.
Me too Ted. :-)
Bev,
This gives Political Scientist a whole new meaning. Does political mean the scientist studies politics? Or is it the scientist is political?
Andrew,
See what I wrote to Bev. ;-)
Thanks LawHawk,
Is it the truth though? I would be hard-pressed to find a liberal idea that worked and worked well.
Sorry LawHawk,
I meant, "Isn't it the truth?"
By the way, I have a whole new appreciation for you, Andrew, Bev and ScottDS. Answering each and every comment can be exhausting. ;-)
By the way, I have a whole new appreciation for you, Andrew, Bev and ScottDS. Answering each and every comment can be exhausting. ;-)
Take it from me, a total amateur - you're doing just fine. And you wrote about something serious. My stuff is somewhat more frivolous. :-)
Thanks Scott,
Frivolous? Not likely! Your subjects are about a multi-billion dollar industry. Hardly frivolous.
Frivolous? Reminds me of a character who said, "The rest of us are here to write professional show business comedy!"
Quick! What was the movie called? Bonus points if you can name the actor who directed the film.
I didn't know the name of the movie so I had to look it up. My Favorite Year directed by Richard Benjamin. I know... I cheated. :-)
Scott!!! I'm shocked! Hehehehe ;-)
Great movie! Peter O'Toole and Mark Lynn Baker. Baker made his name with this movie. He went on to TV to star with Bronson Pinchot in Perfect Strangers. Pinchot made his name in Beverly Hills Cop in a small but unforgettable role.
I loved the climax of My favorite Year.
Joel, It is a lot of work, not only writing the articles, but then responding to comment. But that's blogging!
Outstanding book review, Joel! Thanks!
What really chaps my hide about all these manufactured crises propaganda campaigns is the fact that hardly anyone that buys into them ever feels guilty about the lives it costs or the economnic destruction (jobs lost).
Even if you can get a leftist to admit that banning DDT costs millions of lives in Africa the most honest answer you might hear is "well, we had good intentions and no one knew what the outcome would be."
And that's a big if, because most still cling to all those old lies about DDT, the ozone, asbestos, overpopulation, etc..
Personally, I get downright pissed when I find out the government, teachers, the media, a few powerful "scientists", politicians and others lie to me, especially if it costs lives, liberty, and jobs.
I don't give a rats a$$ if anyone has "good intentions" when they ain't willing to research and know what the hell they are talking about and what it will do to people.
And I would feel bad if I supported a cause that got folks killed or let go because I didn't take the time to really look into it.
I mean sure, many folks don't have a lot of time to do that, or would rather spend the time with their families but after seeing the consequences of not taking the time to do some research into this stuff I look around and notice a lot of our liberties are all of a sudden gone or people died over this, or something else bad happened.
Yeah, I have regrets. I ignored a lot of this stuff in the past and I do feel bad for not doing more to get the idiots who did this damage outta office.
Well, I won't get fooled again, and I won't leave it to others to make sure it doesn't happen again.
It's not much fun checking out the latest bogus (more often than not) study, or writing my representatives or paper, or speaking up when it's easier to just shut up, but as we can easily see, the alternative is worse.
Voting ain't just a right, it's an awesome responsibility.
People lives and liberties literally hang in the balance.
At least with the internet it's a helluva lot faster and easier than it used to be.
And you guys are also a big help.
Sounds like a trash book to me. But then, I know that the death toll from malaria is, now the lowest it's been in human history, and that it has declined constantly since 1965 almost in lockstep with the reduction in DDT use.
DDT use on crops in the U.S. was banned because it kills indiscriminately and, once released, cannot be controlled. Plus, it bioaccumulates, so it hammers predators at the top of food chains.
There was and is no "safe" amount that could be used on crops.
Bet your author didn't say that the U.S. ban on DDT greatly increased the supply of the stuff to fight malaria, did he.
If he's wrong on the small stuff, on the history that's readily available, how wrong might he be on the other stuff?
Interesting review, Joel. Manipulation seems to be such a popular tool in the liberal arsenal.
Freon? It destroys ozone in the high upper atmosphere -- because a free chlorine radical, a breakdown product from Freon and other chlorofluorocarbon propellants, literally gobbles up ozone in a catalytic reaction. Freon is one of the culprits for the ozone hole's existence. The banning of Freon and other similar chemicals allows ozone to recover, as subsequent studies show.
But, don't let science get in the way of a good rant. And please don't fight the men in the white coats who come to take you to dinner.
Andrew,
Like I said, I am appreciative.
You're welcome Ben.
I never knew that many deaths were caused by Liberalism. Most of the people who buy into this propaganda probably don't know either. The rest? Some deny it because it doesn't fit their worldview. Some don't care about the deaths.
At any rate, if you happen to read this book, you would no longer be susceptable to their blandishments.
Ed,
I guess you didn't like the review. Oh well. Not everyone can appreciate it.
It is very hard for me to take seriously a man whose favorite web site is dedicated to Millard Fillmore. I just can't. I don't have it in me.
Dumb question. Do you know what creates ozone in the upper atmosphere? I am sure you don't, since you describe "The Ozone Hole" as a hole in the atmosphere. It isn't a hole. It is a thinning of the shell. It is a natural phenomenon. It happens for a few months a year when UV radiation protection isn't needed.
DDT is a wonderful chemical. It's ban is a damn shame. It is very effective in destroying the insects which carry malaria. It also helps stop another disease which is showing a resurgence in the countries south of the border. Dengue fever it is called. Since you live in Texas, it will hit your area first. I personally don't have much faith in mosquito nets. Do you?
By the way, Rachel Carson, the patron saint of enviromentalists because of DDT, never called for a ban. She just wanted the people who used it to be less indiscriminate in it's use.
Next time, use a better source for your assertions. It would be more interesting.
Thanks WriterX,
Manipulation is only one of their tools. Highly effective....Unless the person is forwarned and learns to recognize the pattern. What this book did for me is lay out that pattern liberals use.
Because Dunn lays it out so well, I no longer am stupefied because a liberal, such as Ed Darrell, throws numbers or technical jargon to shut me up.
Looks like a good read. Thanks for the review Joel.
Best rule of thumb with liberals, they “lie.”
Gee, and here I thought the ozone was "saved" because of that ridiculous Star Trek TNG episode.
I was mildly amused they were beating that dead horse in the
90's, until I discovered there were people like Ed who are still beating what's left (pun intended) of that dead horse today.
Poor horse can't catch a break.
I was mildly amused they were beating that dead horse in the
90's, until I discovered there were people like Ed who are still beating what's left (pun intended) of that dead horse today.
And what is your evidence that ozone is a dead horse, Ben?
If you've not paid any attention to these issues at all, you might think that -- but I would love to see you try to provide peer-reviewed science articles that say ozone was not a problem, and that we may once again use Freon.
Unlike you, I have faith in America. I know that under our laws, a ban on Freon would be illegal if there was not science to back up the ban. I don't think DuPont is so incompetent legally that they wouldn't have challenged the ban, if they had science on their side. I think Americans are fighters, and I'm puzzled why anyone would claim otherwise as you implicitly do (perhaps to your not knowing?).
But, by all means, give us the research that says the ozone hole was not a problem, and that free chlorine radicals were not the cause of the problem.
I dare you.
StanH,
Your welcome and thanks.
Yes, it is a good read. It will help you to understand some of the basics of liberal deception.
Ben,
The dirty little secret is the Ozone layer never needed to be saved. It was a crisis drummed up to sell the National Enquirer. They described "The Ozone Hole" as a thinning of the Ozone layer shaped like a hole. Unfortunately, people who don't know the dynamics of liquids and gases could grasp the notion of a hole but couldn't grasp the concept of a thinning. It was basically lazy thinking.
Now, I already told Patti how the idea of gases being able to destroy ozone was introduced to the citizens of the United States. (This is a shameless plug for Patti's "NOT A WONK" blog. You can find the link to the right.)
Because of that, duplicitous ecological liberals, a NASA scientist whoring for money and a gullible president (BUSH Sr.) Freon was banned.
Except for asthma inhalers. At the time, even liberals didn't relish the idea of witholding medicine from asthmatics. Especially since the inhalers helped and allowed so many people freedom to move without fear of being overcome by an asthma attack.
The total ban was completed by Carol Browner. A Clinton appointee. She was brought back by Obama for more liberal mischief.
Hello again Ed.
I thought you went out to get a new mosquito net. Now, mosquito nets are impregnated with a chemical. What is that chemical?
Oh, about that proof. Where is YOUR proof that Freon can travel up that high? Now, I am not talking about theories. I am referring to solid repeatable experiments that demonstrate Freon can traveled up to the Ozone layer. Located 6 to 10 miles above Earth's surface.
The site you sent me to.... well, it is just a theory. It is full of high sounding rhetoric designed to confuse and convince people that the author is smarter than the readers. It could have been written for Wikipedia and copied to your site for all I know.
It also is your favorite site. It is dedicated to Millard Fillmore. The president who lacked the guts to ban slavery. He left that for other people to do.
Now I know about the experiments that demonstrate that Freon can destroy Ozone. The experiments were conducted in a lab here on earth. There is no conflict there.
The problem is in the transport of a gas heavier than air that high up in the atmosphere. No one has ever been able to demostrate that. Where is your proof?
Part I
You wrote: I guess you didn't like the review. Oh well. Not everyone can appreciate it.
To the extent the review endorsed scientifically inaccurate and factually inaccurate rantings, I didn't like it. My comment was directed at the book -- I assumed you had reported its contents accurately.
I regret if you think my comments on the book's obvious errors are directed at you.
You said: It is very hard for me to take seriously a man whose favorite web site is dedicated to Millard Fillmore. I just can't. I don't have it in me.
That site is dedicated to debunking hoaxes and false myths, like the hoax about Millard Fillmore's Bathtub. You could have read the "About" section of the blog to discover that.
I find it difficult to take seriously people who review books based on gut feel and not on the facts as they exist. The site isn't dedicated to Millard Fillmore.
Fillmore probably doesn't get the credit he deserves in many cases -- his opening of Japan trade, for example. But then, I am getting the impression that you do not seek out facts before making a judgment.
Perhaps more importantly, you could look at the material on DDT at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub -- and if you have a fact-based criticism to offer, you could. You might follow the links, to the scientific articles, to real scientists reporting real science, to solid news organizations reporting good science -- your complaints against Millard Fillmore may be shared by the blog's author (how would you know?), but they don't affect the facts of the case. Your refusal to look at the facts doesn't make your view correct, nor improve your veracity on other issues.
I hope your claim that you "don't have it in you" doesn't apply to rational discussion.
Dumb question. Do you know what creates ozone in the upper atmosphere? I am sure you don't, since you describe "The Ozone Hole" as a hole in the atmosphere. It isn't a hole. It is a thinning of the shell. It is a natural phenomenon. It happens for a few months a year when UV radiation protection isn't needed.
I'm acutely aware of what creates ozone. I spent four years in air pollution research at a major university, much of it dedicated to ozone and its effects at lower altitudes. I've been responsible for and a consultant to Freon replacement in corporate projects, I've worked on air pollution policy for many years, both for and against EPA.
The annual thinning is a natural phenomenon (not as you describe it, but details don't appear important in this discussion and we can let that slide). The almost complete eradication of ozone at the thinning zones is not natural in any way, but instead caused by free chlorine radicals that are, in the upper atmosphere, generally the result of Freon pollution and escape of other fluorine-containing, man-made gases such as those used in hair-spray propellants.
Our phase out of the offending products produced some pain, but not the economic displacement critics predicted. In fact, the phase out of Freon spawned a lot of new engineering and research into use of other products, which research and engineering have produced innovation in air conditioning and other uses of the gases; i.e., new jobs from cleaning up the environment, quite contrary to critics' claims, and those claims here.
(continued)
Part II
You wrote: DDT is a wonderful chemical. It's ban is a damn shame. It is very effective in destroying the insects which carry malaria.
It was good for temporarily knocking down malaria vectors. As you know, malaria is a parasite of humans, also -- mosquitoes get it from humans, then pass it back when the parasite has completed part of its life cycle in the mosquito. The World Health Organization had a very ambitious program to eradicate malaria from the world, but that program was frustrated by abuse of DDT by large agricultural interests in Africa. Overuse on crops bred mosquitoes that are resistant and immune to the stuff. Today, every mosquito on Earth carries alleles that make it at least highly resistant to DDT, if not completley immune. DDT use was ruined by 1965. That's seven years before the U.S. banned spraying DDT on cotton. When you say the ban is a damn shame," you show no understanding of history. The ban didn't travel back in time.
Nor did the ban in the U.S. stop DDT use overseas, contrary to the book's claims. EPA ordered no more use of DDT on crops in the U.S. You know, of course, that EPA has no jurisdiction outside the U.S. -- so claims that the ban stopped DDT use anywhere else are complete hallucinations, or outright lies. EPA was under the gun from federal courts who had ordered DDT use and manufacturing completely banned after trials determined it is a poison uncontrollable in the wild. EPA took a chance, and ordered only use of DDT stopped, leaving manufacturing alone. The courts let that slide. Banning DDT in the U.S. more than doubled the amount of DDT available for use outside the U.S., in places like Africa.
So what your book is claiming is racist, at heart. The author is claiming that Africans, despite having access to all the DDT in the world, and despite the author's (dubious) claim that DDT works like magic, he's saying Africans refused to use DDT even though it would save their children. Nobody is that stupid. It's bad enough that the author didn't figure that out (assuming he's not the racist SOB he appears, but just goofed), and worse that you forgot everything you ever read about DDT, to the extent this author's case didn't set off your Hemingway [excrement] Detector, and even worse that the author is relying on there being a few thousands of others who similarly exhibit Santayana Syndrome, and drive to repeat history.
DDT is poison. Was, still is. It used to be useful for controlling insects, and then yahoos who thought it was magic overused it. Because of that, we've had malaria to kick us around for the last 45 years. Then along come the history revisionists to blame it on Rachel Carson instead. Santayana's Ghost is trying to get your attention.
(Continued)
Part III
You wrote: It also helps stop another disease which is showing a resurgence in the countries south of the border. Dengue fever it is called. Since you live in Texas, it will hit your area first. I personally don't have much faith in mosquito nets. Do you?
Nets keep the insects from biting. With DDT, it doesn't work until the mosquito has bitten its victim; if you're lucky, you're the first bite, and not the one after the mosquito can spread the disease. Yeah, nets have proven from two to four times as effective as DDT in preventing disease in actual experience over the past 15 years.
Then there is this other problem: The species that carry dengue are immune and resistant to DDT already. "All Ae. aegypti populations were resistant to DDT (<80% mortality); two strains were incipiently resistant to deltamethrin and three to permethrin (80-98% mortality)." (In Trinidad and Tobago in this paper, but also in every other test done.) Yeah, we've got dengue knocking on our doors here -- and so we think your hoping that we can just poison Mexico with stuff that won't stop dengue is pointless, if not completely insane.
By the way, Rachel Carson, the patron saint of enviromentalists because of DDT, never called for a ban. She just wanted the people who used it to be less indiscriminate in it's use.
Right. You should read her book sometime and get the facts. She called for integrated vector management. That's what is used today to control malaria without DDT, and with greater success than we had with DDT. Rachel Carson was right, and it's too bad people didn't listen to her earlier and take her to heart. You shouldn't be pushing books that ignore Carson now.
Next time, use a better source for your assertions. It would be more interesting.
Next time? I don't make it a point to discuss science with people who mock scientists, mock science, and don't read it themselves.
Next time you should read your sources, check the citations, and trust the people who got us this far. The author of that book is not among those people.
Ozone hole: You could get some information here, even at PubMed; think what you'd get at the physics and meteorology and air pollution journals!
[blockquote]
Myth #1: CFCs are heavier than air, so they can’t reach the ozone layer.
False! Although CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) are heavier than air, the winds in the troposphere stir around ODS molecules to mix them with air and lift them up to the ozone layer.[end blockquote]
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/index.html
Executive Summary of the 2010 Report on Ozone Depletion:
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2010/02-Executive_Summary.pdf
Ed,
This is the first and last time I am going to tell you this. After due consideration of your information and sources, I have come to the conclusion that you are a loon. Get help.
Hey, I'm not the one making stuff up whole cloth about ozone and DDT.
Perhaps I'm a bit crazy to think you might be swayed by the facts, yes?
Ed, your claim that CFCs can still reach the ozone layer despite their weight is ridiculous. Since you seem to be an intelligent man, you probably know that air in many ways behaves like a fluid--it has currents, it rises and sinks, etc. This means that heavier bodies within the fluid are not locked in position, as with a solid, but sink to the bottom, just as the lighter elements rise to the top. What this means is there's no way for CFCs or other heavier-than-air molecules to "mix" with the atmosphere, winds or no winds. Even if they were briefly blown up to the upper atmosphere, they'd just settle back down toward sea level. Now I don't know a lot about biochemistry, but given the assumptions you, Joel, and the book seem to all be working with, what you're saying defies logic and common sense. And as for your source, if the EPA is really saying it, it's either incredibly stupid or incredibly mendacious: either way, you're only providing further proof of why the EPA needs to be drastically reduced in power.
Hello Ed,
You really are obsessing on this? If you think about it, most people are starting to question every thing that liberals have been pushing all these years. They are finding that liberals have been duping the public over and over again. This is what this book is about.
Check out the court records of the first try at a ban of DDT. You will find that the court slammed the people for the poor research and disallowed the ban. It didn't matter to the "True Believers". They went ahead and achieved a ban because people didn't know enough to question it.
If you were an honest scientist instead of a poser, you would have given me the results of the experiments showing Freon can get up to the Ozone Layer. You would have described in great detail as to how it was conducted, who was on it, etc, etc, etc. You didn't. All you gave me is theories, and not even your own theories. You sent me to sites that only have conclusions by more "True Believers" not scientist's working papers. Raw data so to speak. Also, if there was an experiment, you would have relished giving me the exact details, because it would have affirmed your worldview. Indeed you would have trumpeted it from coast to coast.
This makes you a poser until proven otherwise. You are also one of the "True Believers" more suited to be in a loony bin, since you can easily be considered a danger to yourself as well as others.
Now, we may be late, we may be too late, but we are questioning every single liberal assumption. Once it is decided that liberals are wrong, which is often, things will be reversed. Get used to it.
Check out the court records of the first try at a ban of DDT. You will find that the court slammed the people for the poor research and disallowed the ban. It didn't matter to the "True Believers". They went ahead and achieved a ban because people didn't know enough to question it.
Which case was that? If you check the records, you'll find two federal court cases in 1970 and 1971 that ordered DDT off the market completely -- orders stayed pending hearings at the appropriate regulatory agency.
You Blame America Firsters think the courts and laws are all foolishness, and that regulatory agencies may do anything they wish. That's not the law. The law is that regulatory agencies, like EPA, cannot do something like ban DDT from spraying on cotton, without good scientific evidence to back the rule.
Of course EPA's ruling was appealed -- twice. In both cases federal courts found significant bodies of scientific evidence to warrant getting DDT completely off the market. DDT manufacturers were parties to both suits -- do you claim that their lawyers were all incompetent? Through four federal cases in five years, you claim that the DDT manufacturers' lawyers couldn't get it right once?
No, the truth is that you don't know the history, and you mis-tell the stuff you know.
If all the facts of history were contrary to what they are, you'd have a case. But we can't make good policies, and we can't build a world for our grandchildren, on falsehoods.
DDT regulation appears to have been a godsend, if we do solely by the number of malaria deaths per year. As we decrease DDT use, malaria deaths go down. I don't think there is a cause-effect relationship there -- but your claim that the trend is the other way is error, wrong. It leads you to believe DDT should be used in grotesque quantities again, though there is not a shred of evidence that more DDT would help fight malaria, nor any other disease.
I'm not talking liberal versus conservative. I'm talking facts. Stick with reality, the nightmares (like malaria, like the death of all bald eagles) can be made to go away.
My problem with the book is that it gets the basic facts wrong. Were Franklin Roosevelt a madman who made gas chambers to murder millions of Catholics, World War II would have turned out differently. Roosevelt was not, and he did not.
Let's stick to the facts and understand history, please.
If you were an honest scientist instead of a poser, you would have given me the results of the experiments showing Freon can get up to the Ozone Layer.
I posted the basic material. I regret you missed it.
If you were a scientist and truth seeker instead of a guy with an axe to grind, you'd confess you don't know much about ozone, and that you can't disprove the facts that aerosols get into the upper atmosphere.
I don't expect you to change your mind, but I resent that you accuse me of not giving you what you ask for, when what you ask for is unreasonable, and I've already provided it. You've not provided a lick of evidence to contradict anything I've said, nor a single link to any source to back up any of your hysterical claims.
Can you? Then do it.
Post a Comment