People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

On Being Narrow-Minded

As the saying goes, it takes one to know one.

This comes from a message left on Craig's List (Blacksburg section) about the people of Southwest Virginia by an individual who was born in New York and was apparently raised in Appalachia (grammar and syntax from the original):
I've lived in this area for most all of my life. I was born in New York and was moved down here when I was a kid. So, I've considered myself a local for almost all of my life, but lately, the ire and the frustration that I've been harboring for most of my life is finally mounting. I absolutely abhor Rednecks.

I'm sorry, but regardless of how much education you have or how intelligent you may be, but if you use "Ain't" in normal everyday conversation, as well as "y'all" and other southern vernacular, I immediately lose all capacity to listen to you as a fully trained or intelligent adult. There really is something to be said about the intelligence level of people around here. I've spent my entire life living among you guys, and still I have gained absolutely no respect for the ignorance and intolerance of people in this area.

This area is so narrow minded, full of good-ole-boys rolling around the hills in their pick-up trucks having a jolly ole time. It must be relaxing not using your brain, auto-pilot must be an enjoyable state. No wonder no one else in the entire country (Not to mention the world) holds any respect or interest in Appalachia. It's the armpit of the U.S.

I can't wait until May when I graduate from here and can get as far away as possible from this reeking filth pot.
Ah, yes. We're narrow-minded.

Well, take your ... open-mindedness ... somewhere else. Somewhere where others like you, equally open-minded all, reside. New York comes to mind. Ain't no narrow-minded rednecks up there. No armpits either. Or intolerance. You should fit right in.

See y'all around.

Slowly They Come Around

We have for decades had to endure the leftist cries of woe with regard to the environment. Cries that, make no mistake, were picked up and acted upon by a Congress more than willing to pass laws in response. You have a problem? Congress has the solution.

In the case of one of their many cries, about pesticides, one book, "Silent Spring," led to a complete ban on a very effective deterrent to the spread of malaria. A pesticide called DDT. It was harmful to the environment. Or so the author, and her environmentalist sycophants, and Congress said.

The ban took effect in 1972. The remainder of the developed world followed suit in the 70's and 80's and shipments to "undeveloped" areas most in need - those with serious mosquito problems in Africa - were prohibited thereafter.

And millions of children died from malaria.

But, hey, despite that downside the bald eagle has made a comeback, they will tell you. So there's a trade-off.

Black children in Africa die by the millions so that enlightened people in Oregon can go out on a weekend and see an eagle flying around in a park.

Well finally, FINALLY, some bit of sanity is returning to the issue:
The environmentalists' epidemic
Washington Times editorial

World Malaria Day was observed yesterday, and finally real progress is being made on eradicating this killer disease - no thanks to environmentalists.

Exaggerated fears about the pesticide DDT spread by Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," prevented this solution from being used for many years. For decades, a million or more people died from malaria annually in Africa, with children accounting for 80 percent to 90 percent of those deaths. When South Africa temporarily stopped using DDT in 1996 and switched to another insecticide, the number of malaria deaths increased 500 percent by 2000.

Countries in southern Africa and parts of Swaziland, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Madagascar led the way back to using DDT. They funded their own eradication efforts to get around international aid bans that forbid using the chemical. Their success was difficult to ignore, and international organizations grudgingly flip-flopped in favor of the chemical. The dam broke in September 2006 when the World Health Organization switched from a neutral stance on DDT to actively backing its use.

The United Nations' goal is to reduce malaria deaths in Africa to zero by Dec. 31, 2015. It's a tragedy that millions of victims died before simple, sensible, known weapons were used in this war against disease. In this era of climate-change scaremongering, this is a cautionary tale about acquiescing to the extreme measures environmentalists insist are necessary. Green ideas can kill people. [link]

"Green ideas can kill people." Just as "green" fears are, more often than not, unfounded. Can we talk about nuclear power?

Anyway, common sense - and science - slowly return to their rightful places of prominence with regard to the pesticide debate.

The same will occur with "global warming."

But millions of babies had to die before the knuckle draggers were put back in their caves.

On that note, I wonder how many are soon to die to save the planet from that potential 2˚ increase in temperature that the environmentalists are now whining about.

Well, They've Got Their Pandemic

Four years ago:

The Monster at Our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Flu

Four years later, after millions 50 people died of bird flu:

WHO Cites Potential for Swine Flu Pandemic

If these people didn't always race off the cliff, we'd probably have a little more faith in their judgments.

Only In The New York Times

Do you ever remember any Bush administration official getting this kind of headline in the New York Times?

On Iraq Trip, Clinton Reassures a Nation Still Jittery After Recent Suicide Attacks

Like the average person in Iraq gives a rat's butt who Hillary Clinton is or about what she says.

This Is 'Rational'?

Gun control proponents have a weird understanding of the word "rational." Take one of the biggest of them all, New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. He considers it rational for private gun sellers to have to complete background checks at gun shows. And anyone who disagrees is ... yup ...being irrational:
Gun 'loophole' challenged again
By Chelyen Davis, Fredericksburg.com

Virginia lawmakers have resisted pressure from the governor, from gun-control advocates and from Virginia Tech victims' families to require private sellers at gun shows to run background checks on buyers.

Now a federal bill could take it out of Virginia's hands.

Rep. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, has introduced a bill to close the so-called "gun show loophole."

The "loophole" is that federally licensed gun dealers are required to run instant background checks on people buying guns, but those who are selling guns privately and are not dealers do not have to run such checks.*

In a press conference this week to announce the bill, Lautenberg was joined by some relatives of victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech two years ago.

"There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole," Lautenberg said in a release. [link]
I can think of a rational reason for opposing your misguided bill, pal. It'll be easily gotten around. You're going to require that a private individual go to the trouble of seeking a background check on a transaction that is taking place in the parking lot of the exposition center where the gun show is taking place? What's to stop a private gun seller from walking out onto the sidewalk or across the street and selling that gun, just to avoid the hassle?

And a hassle it is. An intrusive hassle at that.

I guarantee you, that's exactly what I'd do.

By the way, the fact that you had relatives of victims of a shooting that had nothing to do with gun shows or loopholes, Frank, standing with you at this press conference speaks volumes about what's rational and irrational.

* My hat goes off to the reporter for getting this right. Usually the kinds of private transactions that take place at gun shows are distorted by an ignorant press.