http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/25/age-and-kyl
The article is a lovely summary of why Jon Kyl simply cannot be allowed to fail to stand for re-election and disappear out of the Senate into the gloom of retirement or political obscurity. He may be the best candidate for VP. Gingrich is a gadfly who would be hampered by the title, and would serve the nation better without the harness of a title. Santorum would never fit into the Romney administration. The other candidates for the Republican nomination fell by the wayside a long time ago because they didn't fit.
The only possible challenger for VP is Rand Paul, and it seems so appropriate that he joined the Senate two years ago, and therefore has had enough time to figure out the system and make his dominance known... just in time to step into Sen. Kyl's shoes while Kyl takes that step into the Executive Branch...? It's far too early to let Rand Paul out of the Senate, where he can do so much good work, for a brief term as VP. There is no one clearly available to step into Sen. Paul's seat, either.
So let's push Kyl for VP, shall we?
Monday, May 28, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/farm-boy.html
The most politically significant paragraph in the entire article is this one:
"Africa was next on Borlaug's agenda, but by the 1980s he started to face intense opposition from Western environmental groups. Despite his record of success in averting starvation [in Mexico, India and Pakistan], they opposed his 'Green Revolution' scientific methods -- the use of cross breeding, hybridization, inorganic fertilizer -- as 'unnatural.' Some complained the intensive farming techniques he introduced were displacing traditional subsistence farming, as if starvation by native methods were somehow beautiful and noble. "
If this doesn't define the radical environmentalists, I can't think of three sentences that do a better job of it. They act as if the primitive farming methods still in use in the Third World are cultural imperatives, and must be preserved at all costs... and it is easy for them to say so, since the aforementioned costs are borne by the people, not the environmentalist, in for form of deaths by starvation, stunted children and the diseases of inadequate nutrition like rickets and scurvy.
Note that the First World recognized rickets and scurvy; we defeated those diseases centuries ago, by improving our agricultural practices with scientific development. Yet these people in the environmental movement don't apparently care how many children starve in the Third World; they should not be allowed to use hybridized, high-yield seeds or chemical fertilizers. It worked for us; are these people somehow unworthy? Do they not deserve to live better and longer now that the technology is available to make it possible for them? What makes them undeserving? Is it (whisper it: ) their skin color?
I wonder.
Do you?
The most politically significant paragraph in the entire article is this one:
"Africa was next on Borlaug's agenda, but by the 1980s he started to face intense opposition from Western environmental groups. Despite his record of success in averting starvation [in Mexico, India and Pakistan], they opposed his 'Green Revolution' scientific methods -- the use of cross breeding, hybridization, inorganic fertilizer -- as 'unnatural.' Some complained the intensive farming techniques he introduced were displacing traditional subsistence farming, as if starvation by native methods were somehow beautiful and noble. "
If this doesn't define the radical environmentalists, I can't think of three sentences that do a better job of it. They act as if the primitive farming methods still in use in the Third World are cultural imperatives, and must be preserved at all costs... and it is easy for them to say so, since the aforementioned costs are borne by the people, not the environmentalist, in for form of deaths by starvation, stunted children and the diseases of inadequate nutrition like rickets and scurvy.
Note that the First World recognized rickets and scurvy; we defeated those diseases centuries ago, by improving our agricultural practices with scientific development. Yet these people in the environmental movement don't apparently care how many children starve in the Third World; they should not be allowed to use hybridized, high-yield seeds or chemical fertilizers. It worked for us; are these people somehow unworthy? Do they not deserve to live better and longer now that the technology is available to make it possible for them? What makes them undeserving? Is it (whisper it: ) their skin color?
I wonder.
Do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)