It is now clearly in the interest of all journalists to denounce the terrorists.
10 June, 2007
Celebrating the Centennial
of one of the greatest mass murderers in history, Rachel Carson.
The human costs have been horrific in the poor countries where malaria returned after DDT spraying was abandoned. Malariologists have made a little headway recently in restoring this weapon against the disease, but they’ve had to fight against Ms. Carson’s disciples who still divide the world into good and bad chemicals, with DDT in their fearsome “dirty dozen.”
Ms. Carson didn’t urge an outright ban on DDT, but she tried to downplay its effectiveness against malaria and refused to acknowledge what it had accomplished. As Dr. Baldwin wrote, “No estimates are made of the countless lives that have been saved because of the destruction of insect vectors of disease.” He predicted correctly that people in poor countries would suffer from hunger and disease if they were denied the pesticides that had enabled wealthy nations to increase food production and eliminate scourges.
How did this make it into the Times?
A Moment of Catharsis
Yes, it’s a rant. Yes, it’s light on substance. Yes, Harry Reid has it coming.
Yes, yes, yes.
This breath of fresh air brought to you by Dennis Miller.
By The Numbers
Jules Crittenden points out that our kill ratio in Iraq is roughly 10:1.
Chuck Simmins of TDW had been toiling away diligently, recording the deaths of terrorists as reported by MNF-I flaks. Turns out, they weren’t reporting them all. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno had a press conference recently, largely ignored by the press, in which he reported 3,184 terrorists killed since January 2007, and another 1,018 wounded. Simmins took that number, subtracted the ones he had already logged to avoid duplication, and then averaged them out over the last six months. Turns out our soldiers are killing terrorists at a rate of up to 10 to 1.
See the helpful graphics from Terrorist Death Watch.
I guess the enemy is better than I thought, because I was expecting a lot better than 10:1. Of course, if we ever actually admit who’s fighting us and do something about it, I’d expect the ratio to change.
Guidebook for Taking a Life
The New York Times has finally noticed that Muslim extremists are killing people, and have printed this handy guide to Jihadi Etiquette (subscription required, or use bugmenot)
This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals. But the rules have some general themes that underlie actions ranging from the recent rash of suicide bombings in Algeria and Somalia, to the surge in beheadings and bombings by separatist Muslims in Thailand.
This being the NYT, they couldn’t let this pass without some finger-wagging moral equivalence.
Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.
So, you see, killing innocent bystanders when your target is innocent bystanders is just like killing innocent bystanders when your target is the terrorists who target innocent bystanders. I’m sure glad we have the Times to set us straight.
Gimme A Break
I may be plenty pissed at the president right now, but this complaint is absurd.
US President George W Bush drew gasps at the Vatican on Saturday by referring to Pope Benedict XVI as “sir” instead of the expected “His Holiness”, pool reporters said.
They could clearly hear the US leader say “Yes, sir” when the pope asked him if he was going to meet with officials of the lay Catholic Sant’Egidio community at the US embassy later during his visit
First: Saying “yes, sir” as a positive response is as natural to a Texan as breathing in and breathing out.
Second: Nobody who is not Catholic should be expected to address the Pope with any honorific beyond “sir”. It’s a perfectly appropriate way to talk to any man in the world. I, for one, have no plans to call anybody “Your Highness” nor “Your Majesty”, either.
