RUTHFULLY YOURS

Rachel Carson, the muse of the anti-insecticide movement condemned hundreds of thousands of Africans to death from malaria with spurious non scientific facts against DDT which had successfully halted the dreaded disease….rsk

Next year, SA will probably meet its Millennium Development Goal of halting and reversing the incidence of malaria, thanks to the careful, targeted spraying of insecticides, including DDT, in houses. The insecticides protect residents for an entire malaria transmission season, saving countless lives. This method of malaria control is safe for residents and the environment, and is approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the world’s leading malaria scientists. Despite the overwhelming public health benefits of spraying with DDT, some, who should know better, campaign against it.

Last year, Prof Henk Bouwman of North-West University and co-authors published a paper in a respectable journal, Environmental Research, claiming that DDT spraying led to thinning of bird eggshells. Bouwman collected just 15 cattle egret eggs, five in an area of Limpopo where DDT is sprayed indoors for malaria control, and 10 where no malaria control is conducted. After measuring eggshell thickness and levels of DDT and its metabolite DDE, Bouwman performed a regression analysis and concluded that DDT thinned eggshells.

The idea that DDT thins eggshells is not new, but Bouwman used his research to advocate against DDT for malaria control. Let us accept for a moment that Bouwman’s evidence was solid — one would still have to weigh potential harm to bird populations with the enormous life-saving benefits of using DDT. But, in fact, we cannot even make that supposition, because Bouwman’s analysis was false.

In analysing his data, Bouwman, in what we assume was a blunder, transposed the data from the DDT-sprayed areas and unsprayed areas. An accurate analysis of his data actually reveals that the eggshells in the sprayed areas were marginally thicker than in the unsprayed areas. Yet based on his false analysis, Bouwman argued that “there is good cause for concern about the reproductive performance of the cattle egrets in the study area and also in other DDT-sprayed areas in Africa”.

We, with seven other malaria experts, published a response to Bouwman’s paper in Environmental Research, exposing his falsehoods and incorrect conclusions. Bouwman was alerted to his mistake when our response was accepted for publication in January. To date, no erratum or response from Bouwman or his co-authors has been published. This episode is of great concern to the malaria-control community in Southern Africa. Bouwman and a small clique of scientists have long campaigned against DDT using the flimsiest of data, and in the case of Bouwman’s latest efforts, falsehoods. In 2009, Bouwman went so far as to claim on TV that Caster Semenya’s intersex condition was somehow linked to DDT, causing alarm in malarial areas, to the detriment of disease-control efforts. Pressed to provide evidence for his scaremongering, he refused.

Mr. Tren is a director of Africa Fighting Malaria.http://www.fightingmalaria.org/
The Honeybees Are Just Fine

Is a relatively new class of insecticides, known as neonicotinoids or “neonics,” harming bees and other wildlife? That’s what the International Union for the Conservation of Nature claimed in a recent press release announcing the results of a meta-study the organization conducted earlier this year. One might have expected the press release to be accompanied by the underlying scientific studies. But that wasn’t the case.

The proper way to engage in scientific debate is to publish studies so peers can confirm or refute the findings. Frustratingly, IUCN has only released one of its seven studies, preferring to conduct science by press release. This lack of transparency—together with the well-known anti-pesticide position of many of the scientists involved—raises suspicions as environmental groups lobby regulators to ban neonics in Canada and the U.S. The pesticides are already banned for two years in the European Union, and IUCN is calling for even-tighter restrictions and a global phaseout.

IUCN’s claims rest on the idea that neonics can be harmful to bees, worms, and other fauna, and that long-term exposure can cause “impaired sense of smell or memory; reduced fecundity; altered feeding behaviour; and reduced food intake” in species that feed on plants.

First introduced in the 1990s as a replacement for older, more toxic organophosphates and pyrethroids, neonics are often used to coat seeds to obviate the need for widespread spraying, thus reducing exposure to farm workers. Although we can’t know exactly how IUCN arrived at its conclusions, we can examine the existing science and published data, particularly on bees. These data don’t support the anti-neonics case.

Pentagon Prepares to Transfer Six Guantanamo Detainees to Uruguay
Move Is Part of Stepped-Up Effort to Further Reduce the Prison’s Population

The Pentagon is preparing to transfer six detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Uruguay in the next 30 days, according to U.S. officials, part of an effort to further reduce the prison’s population.

Controversy over the decision to swap Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban detainees held in Guantanamo has raised questions about whether Congress will try to block further moves by the Obama administration to try and close the prison.

The Pentagon has notified Congress that it intends to transfer the detainees, which include four Syrians, a Palestinian and a Tunisian. The notification of Congress was first reported Wednesday by the New York Times.

An official said the men being sent to Uruguay were low-level detainees, who all have been approved for transfer years ago.

“This is just another transfer,” said the official.

Since Mr. Obama announced a renewed effort to close Guantanamo more than a year ago, the Pentagon has stepped up the pace of transfers. Congress typically has 30 days to object to any transfer and move to block them.

While lawmakers haven’t moved to block routine transfers in the past, many in Congress are angry at the Obama administration for failing to notify them about plans to transfer the five senior Taliban detainees to Qatar.

There are 149 detainees in Guantanamo, including the six the Pentagon wants to send to Uruguay.

Australia Becomes First Developed Nation to Repeal Carbon Tax
Tony Abbott Pledged to Get Rid of the Tax Last Year

CANBERRA, Australia—After almost a decade of heated political debate, Australia has become the world’s first developed nation to repeal carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

In a vote that could highlight the difficulty in implementing additional measures to reduce carbon emissions ahead of global climate talks next year in Paris, Australia’s Senate on Wednesday voted 39-32 to repeal a politically divisive carbon emissions price that contributed to the fall from power of three Australian leaders since it was first suggested in 2007.

Australia, the world’s 12th largest economy, is one of the world’s largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters due to its reliance on coal-burning power stations to power homes and industry. In 2011, daily emissions per head amounted to 49.3 kilograms (108 pounds), almost four times higher than the global average of 12.8 kilograms, and slightly ahead of the U.S. figure of 48.2 kilograms.

The former Labor government, while introducing a price on carbon, said the move would help slash emissions by 160 million metric tons by 2020. It offered voters billions of dollars in compensation through tax breaks and welfare payments for increased costs stemming from one of the most dramatic reforms ever attempted in the energy-reliant economy.

But after the global financial crisis took hold in 2008, followed by the end of a decadelong mining boom in 2012 that slowed growth and employment in the A$1.5 trillion (US$1.4 trillion) economy, Australian voters turned against climate laws—recognized by the International Energy Agency as model legislation for developed countries—blaming them for rising energy bills and living costs.

s Sen. Elizabeth Warren a Mere Hack or an Out-and-Out Sociopath? P By Bryan Preston

Sen. Elizabeth Warren now says that last year’s government shutdown was about birth control.

Warren did not make the remark in an off-the-cuff setting. She made it in a prepared speech.

Warren said it on the floor of the Senate while supporting a bill that she knows has absolutely zero chance of becoming law.

“Remember last year’s government shutdown that nearly tanked our economy?” Warren asked. “That fight started with a GOP effort to hold the whole operation of the federal government hostage in order to try to force Democrats and the president to let employers deny workers access to birth control.”

Warren is not lying about some distant event for which there is no extant living memory. The government shutdown was last year.

Spoiler alert: That shutdown was not over birth control. That shutdown was over the budget and the entirety of Obamacare. The whole law (which hardly any Democrat read before passing it into law). Not birth control.

There is, in fact, no national controversy over birth control as such. There is a controversy over how the Obama administration used regulatory powers written into the unpopular Obamacare law to impose even abortifacient drugs on Americans who object to the use of such drugs. The controversy is over whether Americans retain the right to live out our religious values once we own businesses.

Spoiler alert: The Supreme Court ruled that we do.

Warren is not merely delivering spin. Saying that the shutdown was about birth control is a Godzilla-sized lie, told intentionally, in order to be provocative. It won’t advance the bill she is supporting. That bill stands no chance of passing in the House, supposing that it even comes up for a vote in the Senate, which it probably won’t, because Democrats do not want to be taking pro-Obamacare votes leading up to the mid-terms. The bill and speaking out in favor of it is nothing more or less than base political theater. Warren is just lying to score points with the Democrat base, who also mostly know that Warren is lying, yet they will repeat the lie themselves until the end of time.

Oh for a thousand. That’s Hamas’s batting average on the eighth day of what Israel calls Operation Protective Edge and what could be called the Insane Hamas War. Hamas has now fired over a thousand rockets at Israel, each time with the hope of inflicting multiple Israeli fatalities, but it still—thanks mainly, of course, to Israel’s remarkable Iron Dome [1] missile-defense system—hasn’t inflicted a single one.

Hamas has also tried to kill Israelis with a maritime infiltration, a tunnel infiltration, and a drone launch [2]—all foiled.

Meanwhile, as the Israeli Foreign Ministry reported [3], Israel

has targeted over 1,576 terror targets, from the air and the sea. Among the sites targeted by the IDF are: long-range rocket launchers, Hamas leadership facilities, terror and smuggling tunnels, fuel-smuggling tunnels, compounds and training sites, communications facilities, air defense elements, concealed launchers, and additional sites used for terror activities targeting Israel, including command and control centers.

These are almost all, needless to say, accurate hits, inflicting great damage on Hamas. Israel has also reportedly inflicted about 200 fatalities—some of them, of course, very famously, unintentionally killed civilians—and a much higher number of wounded.

Hamas was offered a way out of this seemingly losing situation on Tuesday morning when the Israeli cabinet voted 6-2 to accept an Egyptian ceasefire proposal. Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Israel would stop all hostilities if Hamas did, and then work for a diplomatically achieved disarmament of Hamas. Hamas’s military wing—which now appears to be running things in Gaza—responded by turning the offer down flat [4] and firing dozens more rockets. Even then, it took Israel a few hours to start pummeling Hamas again.

What does Hamas want? Apart from the obvious, “glorious” one of murdering men, women, and children, various analysts mention these possible motives: inspiring a new intifada on the West Bank; getting Egypt to reopen the border crossings it has closed; getting Fatah to pay the salaries of 40,000 Hamas civil servants in Gaza; and shoring up its political status vis-à-vis Fatah among the Palestinians. Except—possibly—the last of those, Hamas has achieved none of those goals in these eight days.

Katie Pavlich’s new book, Assault and Flattery (Threshold 2014), flips the script on the creaky old War on Women narrative of the left. Her book would be a welcome addition in campus gender studies programs, where it would do the most good in rebutting the industrial-size narrative about the oppressed role of women and how Democrats bring deliverance.

Naturally, nobody in any gender studies program will be adding Assault and Flattery to the lists of required reading for “Gender, Sexual Violence and Empire” or the “Harlots, Dandies and Bluestockings” classes this fall at Harvard. (Yes, weep aloud, as they really exist.) That’s too bad, because Pavlich’s book lays waste to the false narrative that the modern feminist movement, working hand in hand with the Democrat Party, does any good for women. Quite the opposite is true.

Pavlich provides example after example where the Obama administration has mistreated female federal employees, most obviously, choosing to pay them far less than male counterparts.

Not many books start with a warning. Assault and Flattery does:

Due to the vulgarity of many Democratic Leaders as well as the so-called women’s rights groups that defend them, this book contains language suitable for mature audiences only, or at least those with strong stomachs.

Pavlich doesn’t disappoint, taking on David Letterman’s jokes about statutory rape and Bill Maher’s demeaning characterizations of women — narratives surely absent from gender studies gripe sessions on campus. Pavlich particularly roughs up a left-wing Hollywood culture that will take a back seat to no one in treating women like objects.

But a chapter entitled “Barack Obama: the Most Anti-Woman President Ever” makes the book worth the read. She details the inside story of women enduring employment in the Obama administration. Not only are they paid less, they are treated badly. “I felt like a piece of meat,” Obama’s former communications director said in describing the atmosphere inside the White House. The book goes on to describe the harassment of women employees by Obama political appointees.

This narrative usually remains bottled up and ignored. Gender studies programs, ABC’s White House reporter Ann Compton and any outlet on the left ignore these inconvenient and messy narratives.

WASHINGTON — The White House wouldn’t definitively say that it would extend the July 20 deadline for a nuclear agreement with Iran, but seemed to be laying a groundwork of justification by highlighting what it says was good behavior by the Islamic Republic during the six-month interim agreement.

In a brief statement to reporters early this evening, President Obama did a rapid-fire hit on four foreign policy areas: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and Russia, the last of which is now eligible for new sanctions over the Ukraine crisis.

Reports emerged today that the P5+1 negotiators in Vienna were focusing on an agreement for an extension of the talks.

After admitting that “very real gaps” remain in nuclear negotiations, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled back to Washington from Vienna “to consult with the president and to begin consulting with members of Congress about the way forward,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said today.

Obama said he received Kerry’s update, after which “it’s clear to me that we’ve made real progress in several areas, and that we have a credible way forward.”

“Over the last six months Iran has met its commitments under the interim deal we reached last year, halting the progress of its nuclear program, allowing more inspections and rolling back its most dangerous stockpile of nuclear material,” Obama said. “Meanwhile, we are working with our P5+1 partners and Iran to reach a comprehensive agreement that assures us that Iran’s program will, in fact, be peaceful and that they won’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”

He said as the July 20 deadline approaches, “there are still significant gaps between the international community and Iran and we have more work to do.”

“So over the next few days we’ll continue consulting with Congress and our team will continue discussions with Iran and our partners as we determine whether additional time is necessary to extend our negotiations,” Obama said.

It’s been Congress’ complaint throughout the six-month process, though, that they’ve not received [1] the promised close consultations from the administration.

Earnest painted the talks in a positive light.

If you want to learn whether subsidizing wind turbines makes sense, just glance across the pond. Wind and solar subsidies have effectively doubled the cost of electricity in many European countries.Wind and solar sound good until you run the numbers.Every installation places an ongoing burden on tax and rate payers.At the end of 2013 the PTC, the production tax credit for wind power, expired.
The push is on for Congress to bring it back.Electricity from the wind and sun is anything but free.

Marita Noon argues effectively at CFACT.org that this would be a mistake.
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy. – See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/08/the-ptc-extension-more-taxpayer-dollars-for-green-energy/#sthash.AeEMO8Kn.dpufMarita Noon argues effectively at CFACT.org that this would be a mistake.http://www.cfact.org/2014/07/08/the-ptc-extension-more-taxpayer-dollars-for-green-energy/
This tug-of-war is seen, perhaps most obviously, in the so-called renewable energy field. After Solyndra, and the more than fifty other stimulus-funded Green energy projects that have failed or are circling the drain, the public has grown weary, and wary, of any more spending on Green energy. The money isn’t there to spend, and the motive behind the 2009 rush to push billions of taxpayer dollars out through the Department of Energy has been tainted by corruption and illegal activity.
The Green-energy emphasis was sold as a job creator for unemployed Americans, as a cure for global warming, and as a way to slow a perceived energy shortage. It sounded so positive in the many speeches President Obama gave as a sales pitch to the American public.
Today, Americans know better.
They knew about Solyndra—which took over five hundred million dollars and then folded. Thanks in large part to my exposé, many now know about Abengoa and the Solana solar project—which took billions of taxpayer dollars and is now functioning and producing electricity but does so by breaking immigration and labor laws, giving foreigners hiring preference, and stiffing American suppliers.
Watching multiple predictions fail and proponents get rich, Americans instinctively know that the whole global warming agenda doesn’t add up—as evidenced by this week’s International Conference on Climate Change where more than 600 “skeptics” from around the world gathered to discuss real science and policy.
With headlines heralding: “North Dakota has joined the ranks of the few places in the world that produce more than a million barrels of oil per day,” people know there isn’t an energy shortage. And America’s new energy abundance is on top of our rich reserves of coal and uranium that can provide for our electrical needs for centuries to come.
Yet, the White House keeps pushing the Green-energy narrative and, on July 3, 2014, “The Energy Department Just Announced $4 Billion For Projects That Fight Global Warming,” as the headline reads at ThinkProgress.org.
Wind Energy and the Production Tax Credit

According to the latest opinion poll, published on July 16, President Putin’s approval rating among different segments of Russia’s electorate has risen to an unprecedented 66 percent. This may change quickly, however, if he comes to be perceived as weak and indecisive in handling the next stage of the Ukrainian crisis – the one that may entail heavy fighting in Donetsk and Lugansk, with fresh civilian casualties and further deterioration of the beleaguered insurgents’ military position.

Putin’s popularity is partly due to the improving living standards, but it also rests on the hugely important perception that he has managed to bring Russia back to major power status after the decade of domestic decline and international humiliation under Boris Yeltsin. His counterattack in Southern Ossetia in August 2008, his nifty defusion of the Syrian crisis last September, and his energy deal with China in May are widely seen as the key markers on the road to Russia’s geostrategic recovery.

The Russians are far more concerned about external security than their peers in Western Europe or North America, which is unsurprising in view of the historical record and the country’s absence of natural barriers to foreign invasions. The massive Golden Horde onslaught from the east (1237-1240), which destroyed Kiev and eventually devastated all of the Kievan Rus’ – save the forest belt-protected Novgorod and Pskov – coincided with the attack by the Swedes (1240) and the Teutonic Knights (1242) from the west. The latter two were defeated by Prince Alexander Nevsky, but the consequences of the two-pronged attack for the Russian collective psyche were profound and long-lasting.

The sense of insecurity was enhanced by the Polish invasions of 1610-1613. They occurred during the “Times of Troubles,” a period of domestic political turmoil which was overcome at the last minute by the joint early-modern patriotic appeal of a commoner and an aristocrat, Kuzma Minin and Count Dmitry Pozharsky. The long-term result was Russia’s conscious and continuous policy of territorial enlargement – most notably from Peter’s decisive victory at Poltava to Catherine’s participation in the partitions of Poland – which permanently brought Russia into the league of great European powers by the end of the 18th century. The two autocrats’ successful attempt to create defensible buffer zones on all sides – in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Siberia – paid rich dividends in defending the heartland against Napoleon in 1812. In all key respects the same geostrategic principle applied to the existential struggle against Hitler in 1941-1945.