Forest fires vs wild fires

My whole childhood I can remember Smoky the Bear saying “Only you can prevent forest fires!” But it was learned that prevention of forest fires actually was a bad thing. It allowed for excessive ground cover which provided too much fuel for the once ‘limited’ burn to now become a ‘Wild Fire’ causing more damage than the limited natural burns that will occur without interference. So now Smoky says “Only you can prevent wild fires.” This took 100 years to notice.

Insulation and cigarette bans vs toxic mold

Prior to the Oil Embargo of the 1970’s there was less incentive to insulate buildings as well. Prior to popular bans on cigarette smoking indoors of many buildings, there was a less hospitable environment for toxic molds to develop. Add to that less exchange of outside air with better insulation and we create a more hospitable environment for currently blossoming, previously rare toxic molds.

DDT vs. Death by Malaria

Robert J. Cihak, M.D.
April 28, 2004

The pervasive superstition that DDT is utterly noxious remains immune to scientific evidence to the contrary. These myths are much more persistent in some minds than DDT is in the environment.

That DDT prevented 500 million deaths by 1970 and that the banning of its use in poor countries has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths holds no sway with true believers in this doctrine.

Where did this myth originate?

In 1962 Rachel Carson published "Silent Spring," arguably the most important American book since "Uncle Tom's Cabin" kicked off the Civil War. "Silent Spring," with its apocalyptic claims of the effects of the insecticide DDT, became a founding tract of the environmentalist movement.

Many of her claims are now known to be the result of sloppy science, or worse. But the superstition that DDT is always and forever evil persists in too many minds, along with murderous disregard for its life-saving properties.

In a remarkable article in the April 11 New York Times Magazine, "What the World Needs Now Is DDT," Tina Rosenberg, a Times editorial writer, describes how DDT should be used more extensively in Africa, and points out why it is not. She writes:

"... South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. ... [S]prayed in tiny quantities inside houses - the only way anyone proposes to use it today - DDT is most likely not harmful to people or the environment. Certainly, the possible harm from DDT is vastly outweighed by its ability to save children's lives."

So, why is DDT not being used in this benign manner, let alone more aggressively against malarial mosquito breeding areas? The answer: Wealthy Western funders won't allow it. And they won't allow it because of a combination of outdated science and pseudo-science, coupled with a truly breathtaking faux morality.

Ms. Rosenberg notes "wealthy countries' fear of a double standard" and quotes E. Anne Peterson, assistant administrator for global health at the U.S. Agency for International Development:

"For us to be buying and using in another country something we don't allow in our own country raises the specter of preferential treatment. We certainly have to think about 'What would the American people think and want?' and 'What would Africans think if we're going to do to them what we wouldn't do to our own people?'"

What would Americans want? If millions of Americans were dying from malaria, we'd be spraying DDT furiously.

This current "beggar thy neighbor" approach reflects a kind of Western imperial arrogance - and ignorance - that would rather let people suffer and die than face the fact that some secular pieties may be wrong.

But a deeper hypocrisy is involved. A wetland, it has been said (not entirely in jest), is a swamp that certain elites care about. Apparently, this holds true even when the swamp is a breeding ground for a disease that kills millions of people and when the problem can be cured without hurting the swamp; there's no limit on the ability to ignore suffering as long as banning DDT provides the swamp-lovers with their jollies.

Ms. Rosenberg notes her surprise when she reread "Silent Spring" in preparation for writing her article: "In her 297 pages, Rachel Carson never mentioned the fact that by the time she was writing, DDT was responsible for saving tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of lives."

This would be equivalent to writing a book about the horrors of penicillin poisoning, without mentioning the good it does. Carson's silence about DDT's life-saving power was irresponsible.

Even today, true believes ignore the testimony and scientific evidence presented by real scientists. J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Biological Sciences at San Jose State University, testified at the 1971-1972 EPA hearings on DDT when the EPA was considering its dreadful blanket DDT ban. He has been telling the truth about DDT ever since. For many more scientific facts and demystified myths (see 100 things you should know about DDT ).

Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" launched the modern environmental movement by spinning tales about the intricacy and inter-connectedness of ecosystems in a way that laypersons could grasp. This might have been good if it hadn't been linked with false dogmas that have proven utterly disastrous, such as the myth that human beings are destroying the planet with DDT.

The truth is that discriminating use of DDT kills mosquitoes and eradicates malaria wherever it's adequately used. It does not destroy our environment; it saves lives. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to millions of less-affluent humans elsewhere.

Robert J. Cihak, M.D., is a Senior Fellow and Board Member of the Discovery Institute and a past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Partitions vs Taxi driver murders

Prior to Partition use mandates most robberies were not done with a gun. It wasn’t necessary. Now, with partitions, most robberies are done with a gun. Murder rates rise radically, with partition use mandates. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to millions of less-affluent humans elsewhere. It's time to let go of a phony belief system lethal to cab drivers.

The Washington, D.C. Police chief at one time endorsed the disarming of cab drivers, now endorses the population be armed.

Cab Drivers Shouldn't Carry Concealed Weapons, D.C. Police Chief Says in October, changes in November

ASSOCIATED PRESS

FILE In this Nov. 30, 2010 file photo, Washington Police Chief
Cathy Lanier speaks at the National Press Club in Washington.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier says taxi drivers should be
banned from carrying concealed handguns.

Lanier made the recommendation during a hearing on a bill
that would allow District of Columbia residents and visitors
to get concealed handgun permits for the first time in nearly
40 years.

At Lanier's urging, the bill also includes restrictions on
carrying guns near dignitaries or at high-profile events. But
she says carrying a weapon should be restricted areas
where carrying a weapon would be prohibited to the grounds
and parking lots surrounding government buildings.

The bill has widespread support from the District's political
leaders, and Democratic Mayor Vincent Gray has already
signed a temporary version. But Thursday marks the first
public hearing on the bill. Advocates for gun rights and gun
control are also scheduled to testify.

Gun-rights advocates say the bill doesn't fully comply with the
Second Amendment because it requires people to show a
reason why they need to carry a gun for self-defense.

Published at 5:46 AM EST on Oct 16, 2014

One month later after the Paris attack...

In a 60 Minutes interview scheduled to air
November 22, Washington DC police chief
Cathy Lanier said taking out the gunmen in
a Paris-style attack is the “best option” for
citizens between the time they call 911 and
the moment police arrive.

Lanier said citizens basically have three options–they can
“run, hide, or fight.” And she said choosing to “take the
gunman out” is the best option if the citizen is in a position
to do so.

According to CBS News, Lanier said, “If you’re in a position
to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out,
it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.
” She admitted that such advice runs “counterintuitive” to
what police have been saying for decades, but she stressed
that the situation has changed.

Lanier said: “We always tell people, ‘Don’t…don’t take action.
Call 911. Don’t intervene in the robbery’…we’ve never told
people, ‘Take action.’ [But] it’s a different…scenario.”

She also made clear that she does not want Americans to be
paranoid, but she does want them to be alert and prepared.

In January 2013, Breitbart News reported that Milwaukee County
Sheriff David Clarke asked county residents to get a gun and
familiarize themselves with it so they could use it to defend
their lives between the time they dialed 911 and the time police
arrived.

Since that time, other law enforcement and public figures have
urged citizens to arm up for self-defense; advising against the
old tactic of compliance and passivity in the face of life-threatening
danger.

In August of this year, Louisiana Sheriff Jeff Wiley “urged women to
get concealed-weapons permits” so they could keep a gun with them
with which to defend their lives.

And on October 2–just one day after the Umpqua Community
College gunman allegedly lined up victims and questioned them
about their religion before killing them–Tennessee Lt. Governor Ron
Ramsey (R) urged “Christians” to get a concealed carry permit in
order to defend their lives against religiously-motivated attacks,
according to The Washington Times.

DC police chief Lanier is now the most recent law enforcement
figure to break with the old pacifist dogma.

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/22/dc-police-chief-best-
option-citizens-take-paris-style-attackers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_
medium=social

After the Paris attacks last month, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said, “ A lot of Detroiters have CPLs (concealed pistol licenses), and the same rules apply to terrorists as they do to some gun-toting thug. If you’re a terrorist, or a carjacker, you want unarmed citizens.”

Add to that list

Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum from Ulster County, located about 2 hours north of New York City. On his Facebook page yesterday, Blarcum posted: “In light of recent events that have occurred in the United States and around the world I want to encourage citizens of Ulster County who are licensed to carry a firearm to please do so,” wrote Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum in a Facebook post. “I urge you to responsibly take advantage of your legal right to carry a firearm. To ensure the safety of yourself and others, make sure you are comfortable and proficient with your weapon, and knowledgeable of the laws in New York State with regards to carrying a weapon and when it is legal to use it.”

Bullet-resistant vests vs head-shot murders of police officers

Prior to the popularity of bullet-resistant vests the frequency of head shots was much lower.

Car Alarms vs car jackings

Prior to car alarms cars were stolen when the owner wasn’t around. Now cars get stolen by car-jackings. Increasing the risk to the theft victim.