Lying at the EPA

Evaggelos Vallianatos was an analyst for the EPA and is now a self proclaimed expert on pesticide use and corporate farming. He recently pimped his book "This land is their land" on BookTV. After listening to the presentation, I couldn't help but feel that this man is not a scientist. He makes noises like any other liberal arts professor. Worse, he's joined the cult of organic farming. You know, the folks who brought us contaminated spinach? So, I checked his biography, and sure enough, he has a BA in zoology, an MA in Byzantine history, and a Ph.D in Greek and Russian history. With all that education in ecological issues, no wonder the EPA hired him...NOT!

At any rate, to prove how pesticide use has gotten out of control, he read a litany of statistics comparing present day use with 1962 usage. Problem is, in 1962, we were using DDT, an EXTREMELY efficient pesticide, a little went a lot. It was banned during the environmental awakening in the 60's and early 70's. So , no wonder we need more pesticides today! Plus, last time I checked, we got an extra billion of two to feed than in 1962. No one asked about this, they just sat in awed admiration of this huckster.

I know we can't stop universities from passing out advanced degrees in obsolete knowledge. I know we can't stop publishing companies from producing books written by fanatics like this one. And we can't stop people from grabbing the nearest soapbox and peddling their religion. But hopefully, we can stop the EPA and other government agencies from hiring incompetent fanatics and putting them in positions of power.

When 99.9% is not good enough

I'm getting just a tad tired of these commercials saying that some anti-bacterial whatever will kill 99.9% of all bacteria/germs/whatever. That can still leave thousands waiting to attack. Care to stroll through a minefield where 99.9% of all the mines have been cleared? Worse, those that are left are probably immune to the anti-bacterial, and in all likelihood have spawned several generations of resistant strains. Care to stroll through a minefield where the mines left are spawning new mines, all of which are undetectable?

We have gotten way too hygienic these days. With allergies at an all time high, and getting more viscous in their effects, with drug resistant strains staturating our hospitals, isn't it timer we thought about getting just a bit more dirty, and take our chances?

Why is politics so vitriolic?

I think I am beginning to understand why there is so much hate in politics these days. When the conservatives were out of power, they were fighting for their own rights from outside. Defending yourself is easy. It's your money, it's your property, it's your state, your schools...etc. You don't have to get angrily defensive about your position, because possession really is 9 tenths of the law.

The progressives, however, are trying to take over some of what you consider to be your possessions. They have to make the case that:
a) you stole what you have (which is why we have federal and state regulations)
b) you don't deserve what you have (taxes take care of this)
c) you don't need what you have (even more taxes take care of this)
d) others deserve what you have more than you do (the rest of the taxes are here)

It's a hard argument to make. This weekend on BookTV (C-SPAN2), I was amused to hear several different people argue that rural areas have disproportionate representation, and a disproportionate share of the Electoral College vote. Think about that. Electoral College votes are based on the number of representatives and senators you have. Wyoming has 3. California has 55. Imagine trying to argue, as Thom Hartmann and Brian Mann did, that California is not only under-represented, but that it was so under-represented that it was like disenfranchising the entire state of Colorado! Gee, I always though that 55 was much bigger than 3. As a politician, am I going to try to win 3, or 55?

So it's no wonder the progressives need stridency and hysterics to make their points. Over the years they have gotten used to bumper sticker slogans (Bush Lied, Thousands Died) and you cannot make some of their more intricate points with bumper stickers. Their base are people who don't know how to vote (think hanging chads and eliminating those horrible voting machines that are just too complicated) and the liberal affluent. They need to reach the middle class. What they really need is to learn that they cannot reach the middle class by being sly, and making specious arguments. I'm open to arguments I'm not paying enough taxes. But it will take a reasoned argument to wrest more money, or my vote, for the purpose of raising my taxes.

So where are the reasoned arguments from reasonable people? Silenced by Kossacks and scared by the attack on Lieberman, they are being very quiet right now. Instead the airwaves are full of Hartmanns and Frankens and Huffingtons, aiding the Rangles and Pelosi's of the world to fool people into supporting them. It may be working, the polls are tending to a Democratic take-over of the House. Maybe it's a good thing. Give the Democratics 2 years to implement their plans, and watch the Republicans come back in 2008 when the public at large see the fruits of their labors taken from them. Oh well, I can dream.....

Groovin on Tunes and Thinking Weird Thoughts

Just a quick note....listening to Cat Stevens (I know, he's verboten in the post 9/11 age) song called Sitting....the last line is what happens to a lot of people...."life is like a maze of doors and they all open from the side your on, just keep on pushing hard boy, as you may, your going to wind up where you started from...your going to wind up where you started from"...why do we do this to ourselves. Out of 300 million Americans......out of over 3 billion free people in the world..is there not one willing to sacrifice their life to kill Kim Jong Il? Or the looneys in Iran? Think of what one well placed bullet in Hitlers ear could have saved! Or in Stalins ear. Or even Richard Nixon.....sometimes you have to lance a boil before it festers...and save the limb....or the life....why don't we do that?

You want to conquer Saddams Iraq? KILL HIM!!!!!! It will be what you want, or you will kill the next Saddam to rise. One person killing one person....not 3000 killing 30,000....or am I the only one to see this?