(Page 3 of 11)
Gerald and Natalie Sirkin reply: This is a rural legend. If one wants to know about the effects of DDT on birds, why would one want to ask farmers when you have scientists and ornithologists who can tell us about them? They testified at the 7-month hearing held by Administrative Law Judge Edmund Sweeney and he concluded that DDT does no harm to wildlife.p> HARM’S BEEN DONE br> Re: Doug Bandow’s The World Harm Organization : /p> p>I found the above article to be very informative except in one respect. The assertion that “although widespread outdoor use of DDT years ago did have adverse environmental consequences” seems to take a position at odds with numerous articles on the use of DDT published here in the Spectator. Everything I have read concerning the use of DDT is that it is perfectly safe and that no “adverse environmental consequences” could be plausibly tied to its use. Just another case of the big lie? Repeat something loud enough and long enough and people will start to believe it even in the absence of any evidence. br> — Bill White br> Great Mills, Maryland /p> p> BERRIGAN COLLEGE
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?