Blog powered by Typepad

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Become a Fan

« Barnes on continental philosophy | Main | A circle »

June 11, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ed Darrell

I think it's more accurate to talk about Beck's attack on Lambert. Lambert is defending himself. He's defending well, too, as you note.

Ed Darrell

I think it's more accurate to talk about Beck's attack on Lambert. Lambert is defending himself. He's defending well, too, as you note.

Aaron Boyden

Good point, I could have phrased that better.

bellatrys.livejournal.com

I realize this is an older post, but I just chanced across your blog via Echidne's and I would like to mention that there *is* a fiscal component to the pro-indiscriminate-DDT-usage movement, in addition to the rhetorical function it serves of providing a weapon of "Liberal Hypocrisy Towards The Third World" and "Humanity Hating Ecologists" - this is in fact the first thing that ever clued me into the existence of "astroturf" long before I had any means of doing anything about it, when I was still a nearly-completely-owned theocon youth.

See, although my family were conservative "prolife" Catholics, they were also converts and very much into the arts and sciences. (Yes, such folks exist! Nowadays they tend to call themselves "Crunchy Cons" but this was before then.) So we had the Geographic and Smithsonian around the house along with The Wanderer and the National Catholic Register, and Silent Spring, too - and every week we watched PBS nature documentaries - so I grew up knowing all about how DDT harmed songbirds and nearly wiped out the peregrine falcons and the efforts to bring them back, and being pro-organic-farming and against pollution, and never knew these were heresies within the greater movement until I came across an early pro-DDT rant in the Register which made the outrageous claim that there was no evidence at all that DDT harmed birds, as well as that familiar saw about how if liberals *really* cared about poor people in other countries they wouldn't be opposed to spraying it around.

And I wondered why anyone would claim something so obviously counterfactual, and began to wonder what *else* might be erroneous in our movement's own media...the beginning of a long journey away from trusting the authorities I was raised to accept unquestioningly started *there*.

But it wasn't until I hit the infamous "Environmentalists Killed The Space Shuttle" essay and discovered WND and began digging into who was *paying* for this agitprop that I finally found out why that apparently out-of-nowhere rant in favor of DDT had been inserted into all our pro-Latin-Mass, anti-Hollywood, anti-contraception propaganda: it had been by someone who was an Olin Chair at some university.

And Olin could sell a lot more DDT again, if people didn't get upset at the loss of songbirds and raptors...

So yeah, there is a follow-the-money aspect to it, which I thought you might find interesting. Hired oracles tell their paymasters what they want the polis to believe.

The comments to this entry are closed.