Bush decided to endorse a global ban on DDT through the United Nations "POPS" treaty to ban "Persistent Organic Pollutants." He made the announcement on the eve of Earth Day, in an action widely interpreted as an attempt to make himself look "green." This came after the Administration had been beaten up by the media and the environmentalists on such issues as arsenic in drinking water. Rather than do the right thing -- reverse the ban on DDT -- Bush decided to pander to those attacking him.

In his announcement, Bush said the chemicals banned by the treaty were "dangerous," and that the ban was "based on solid scientific information." That is just not true. The science shows the value of DDT. Dr. Robinson says the campaign against DDT coincided with the rise of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the modern environmental movement. It was a campaign marked by deliberate falsehoods. The EPA itself had concluded that DDT was harmless to he environment and was a beneficial substance. The book that spearheaded the demonization of DDT was Silent Spring by Rachel Carson.

A graph showing the spraying of DDT with cases of malaria demonstrates that as DDT was phased out, malaria has risen dramatically. Malaria now afflicts 250 million adults and kills about 3 million children a year. Robinson said about Bush that he is a decent and well-meaning man, and that if he was just given he facts, he would do the right thing. Robinson said, "Another child's life - every twelve seconds - depends on it."

Well, Bush has now done the wrong thing. He has panicked under the assault of the media and the environmentalists. This sets a dangerous precedent. Now we are even reading that Bush is re-thinking his rejection of the global warming treaty. If Bush can be stampeded into endorsing this measure, perhaps he can be pressured by the left into supporting other dangerous treaties, such as the one creating an International Criminal court.

As usual, media coverage on this issue was terrible. The New York Times called the chemicals outlawed by the treaty "lethal." The Washington Post called them "dangerous." Both the Times and Post highlighted the reaction of the radical environmentalists who had been beating up on the president. They were pleased by what he did. Only the Washington Times featured criticism of Bush from the right -- from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said endorsing the treaty was a big mistake.

I'll go smoke a bong before I believe that DDT is harmless.

If environmentalists would be fair maybe we could actually get some where in settling our differences. Your kind (though not specifically you) are usally wealthy, snobbish, and very selfish. You refuse to see any other side than your own.

Yeah yeah, my kind, whatever.

Note the word (yours initially): harmless. I'm willing to believe that the effects of DDT have been overstated. But it would take some extraordinarily convincing evidence to make me believe DDT is literally harmless.

The best lies are 90% truth.

DDT will cause fewer deaths than malaria so ddt is preferable simple arithmatic.

hey ill smoke a bong anyway but thats not the point....

the point is that the UN is the stupidest thing i have ever heard of....its a bunch of left over hippies trying to enforce their ideas for the better of the world....now im not exactly sure how you come up with a plan that will benefit EVERY country in that god forsaken den of international politics but i guess people like it....go figure....

now compare the UN to weed for instance.....one kills directly and indirectly.....one only kills indirectly....one eases pain and suffering for the starving children in whereever that do nothing for the world except make another mouth to feed...the other just eases pain....one feels its necessary to make the everyone's business their own...the other one is just everybody's buisness on the side....and the final part....one you have to sign up for and doesnt ever encompass the worlds view...the other is present all around the world....

conclusion

make the UN illegal...free the weed...

but thats me...and i could be wrong....maybe its just a terrible tragedy...

el privo

oh yeah....about the title....i think bush just regressed to his old days and smoked the green...just a hypothesis...

[This message has been edited by Hero_of_Ktulu (edited 06-03-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokil:
If environmentalists would be [b]fair maybe we could actually get some where in settling our differences. Your kind (though not specifically you) are usually wealthy, snobbish, and very selfish. You refuse to see any other side than your own. [/B]

---

Takes out environmentalists and inserts Republicans:

If Republicans would be fair maybe we could actually get some where in settling our differences. Your kind (though not specifically you) are usually wealthy, snobbish, and very selfish. You refuse to see any other side than your own.

Takes out Republicans and inserts Democrats:

If Democrats would be fair maybe we could actually get some where in settling our differences. Your kind (though not specifically you) are usually wealthy, snobbish, and very selfish. You refuse to see any other side than your own.

Takes out Democrats and inserts poodles:

If poodles would be fair maybe we could actually get some where in settling our differences. Your kind (though not specifically you) are usually wealthy, snobbish, and very selfish. You refuse to see any other side than your own.

Hmmmm... this argument sounds flawed.