Interesting observation. Do you think she should resign? She can't be fired from Congress, although the Democrats could remove her as Speaker.

The point concerning Ceylon was not about timing but about the efficacy of DDT. When used it virtually eliminated malaria, when stopped, the malaria returned nearly to pre-DDT levels.

It's curious that you say that, "Sweeney's findings were that DDT is incredibly destructive to wildlife," when in his own words he said, "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." So other than your saying so, what is your proof that Sweeney said the opposite?

Why did Rucklehaus make his ruling without hearing a single hour of seven months of testimony on the subject and his own aids said he didn't read the transcript. What was the purpose of all of that fact finding if Rucklehaus didn't listen to it or read it? What was the basis of his decision?

You say that the "manufacturers themselves imposed the same restrictions in their newly-proposed label," then you say in the next paragraph, "the DDT manufacturers appealed." Appealed what? Either they agreed with Rucklehaus or they didn't, which is it?

The topic of the article is "Junk Science Kills Millions," and your defense is that two federal courts made a decision against it. You sound like a trial lawyer defending your profession rather than the facts of the case. Have you ever looked at some of the loony judgments coming out of the Ninth Circuit in California? Was OJ Simpson innocent because he had a trial presided over a judge. What if the real argument is that the manufacturers had good science, but lousy lawyers? How many big companies fold their tents as soon as they are sued because it is cheaper to settle that fight for what is right. I'm sorry, you'll have to do a lot better with facts than what a judge or two decides.

You say, "No scientist claims that anyone is dying of malaria because of a lack of DDT." I am immediately skeptical of anyone who begins a statement, "No scientist..." You have consulted them all, obviously, and none dissents with your view, I presume? Or is this like the great global warming/climate change debate where it is "settled" and no dissent is allowed? It's an interesting formulation nonetheless, "No scientist claims that anyone is dying of malaria because of a lack of DDT." The availability of DDT or the lack thereof, has no effect on malaria if you don't use it.

Your solutions are the typical closing of the barn door after the horse has run away. Better medicines? Well that assumes, too late, the patient already has malaria. Education? Okay, dump out standing water liked they learned when building the Panama Canal. What if you can't drain every puddle of standing water? Better prophylaxis of a physical nature? Okay, fine, but the mosquitoes are still waiting on the other side for an opening, a tear, or just for the victim to come out. Concerted action, whatever that bromide means, and money which of course is the answer for most statists. Use DDT, like they did in Ceylon, and the problem is solved. Use your methods and it's trench warfare for the next fifty years, buying more nets, more medicine, more education, more concerted action, all the while ignoring the root cause is the mosquito. If you don't solve the root cause by killing the mosquito, you don't solve the problem.

As for your statement, "Why do you fail to count the damage DDT does," is because you haven't proved the damage DDT does. You talk about Sweeney's findings, but don't quote them or give a source of what those findings were. You say that "this hoax" story cause policy makers to freeze in their boots. The policy makers banned DDT, and millions of people have died because of it, and you quote no study or science that proves otherwise.

So if you want a fair hearing, stop the platitudes, and come up with the facts.

Kate,

Very well said. We have to be extremely vigilant. When they reach for our liberties we have to slap that hand away decisively. We cannot wait for someone else to do it. Like the minutemen, we have to be ready at a minutes notice to speak out.

It's astounding isn't it? All that money and what does it really buy? Votes and interest groups for the Democrats. It's about consolidating their power. They held Congress for 40 years and then lost it and they will now do whatever they can to lock it down for the next 100 years.

During the campaign, he was often glowingly compared to Kennedy. When the world saw how inexperienced Kennedy was they pounced (Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Wall, etc.). What is even worse is that Obama comes to office with no power base. What does that mean?

Executives who were former governors, have experienced administrators that they trust and who are loyal to them. They would take the proverbial "bullet" for their guy, because they know their guy will watch out for them as he has in the past. Think of Johnson (all his loyal contacts in Congress); Nixon (contacts as Vice President); Carter (governors office in Georgia); Reagan (governors office in California); Bush I (many posts throughout government); Clinton (governors office in Arkansas); Bush II (governors office in Texas). What is Obama's power base? Community Organizer in Chicago? Even Kennedy, who had no executive experience, had family connections in spades and was a naval officer to boot. When, not if, when the going gets really tough whose going to take a hit for Obama based on their long history? Anyone?

I completely agree that Proposition 8 is stupid, only to be exceeded by the attempt to use the courts to re-define marriage. Can I get a court to re-define my children to be part of a minority group so that they have a better shot at college? Can I get a court to re-define me as a former centerfielder for the New York Yankees, so I can sign autographs for adoring fans? If it's rights they want, fine, go fight for your rights. Just don't go redefining everyone else so that you can be more comfortable with who you are. If you think it is cool to be tall, doesn't mean you can just get a court to say you are, and at the same time re-define all tall people as short.

We also count among our blessings those who kept watch as we slept.

It makes sense doesn't it? But people in government are only concerned about their special interest groups. Who can get me re-elected? Who donated to my campaign (unions), and if you are a mere citizen, here's the bill.

Can you say Gestapo? Or, after the appropriate "education" will we go back to our neighborhoods and become "block watchers" like in Castro's Cuba so that the government can know who needs to be re-educated?

You almost want to smack yourself in the head. I have tried in vain to get any Obama supporter to give me one accomplishment that Obama has done that would give an indication that he is qualified to be president. Nothing. Nothing but platitudes. Well the platitudes paid off, not it's time for the rubber to meet the road. Stand by to start building the case for his replacement.