August In Africa

uh, Craig … you neglect to mention that part of the reason the for the malaria spread is the fact that there is little medical care and / or treatment for a variety of diseases in that part of the world … otherwise, we’d have a malaria epidemic here, too …

Joshua:

No, medical care and treatment don’t prevent the contraction of malaria. They prevent mortality. Medicine can’t stop a malarial mosquito from biting you.

I should add I’ve been a BIG proponet of universal health care long before SICKO came out … not just for here, but for everywhere …

Actually, if I recall correctly, there is something, a preventative drug one can take to prevent malaria from a mosquito bite …

If I’m wrong, of course, I’m sure the scribosphere will correct me in due time …

Can you tell when I’m taking an email break from my script?

Time to force myself back to it …

Why is DDT the only solution? I certainly wouldn’t go so far to say that DDT is the opposite of the devil’s chemical - since other, very effective and substantially less toxic alternatives are now known.

Since mosquitoes are not migratory, mosquito traps such as Skeetervac are very effective at dramatically reducing the mosquito population in a specific area.

Another thing would be to encourage insectivore populations such as bats. Bats are becoming recognized, not as pests, but as useful for insect control.

DDT is more deadly to the overall populations of the animals that eat/control mosquitoes than it is to the mosquitoes themselves.

… Chemical poisons kill natural mosquito predators more effectively than mosquitoes. Over time, predators such as fish, mosquito-eating insects and bats die out, while mosquitoes develop resistance, enabling them to multiply in ever-larger numbers in a losing battle often referred to as �the pesticide treadmill.�

from “Bats, Man-Made Roosts, and Mosquito Control” by Merlin D. Tuttle (http://www.batcon.org/bhresearcher/bv8n2-4.html)

augh! My HTML coding got lost.

The excerpt from the Tuttle paper starts at the ellipse in my post above this one.

augh! My HTML coding got lost.

The excerpt from the Tuttle paper starts at the ellipse in my post above this one.

Fair enough. A similar article about the Father of DDT appeared a few years back in the New Yorker, and made the same case.

As long as we agree that Rachel Carson was entirely correcrt to warn of the miracle chemical’s dangerous misuse in this country.

Regarding AfricaFightingMalaria, you may also want to read this piece from Deltoid:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/africafightingmalarias_wedge.php

Also, DDT was never actually banned for use in disease prevention:

http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2007/03/dominic-lawson-intellectually-dishonest.html

and this has what to do with being an artful writer?

the whole ddt thing has been hashed and rehashed for years now. no one knows what the result would be, even if you think the essay is excellent.

let’s get back to screenwritingland!

craig, you’re right. it’s a shame how much crappy junk science people believe.

Matt:

Don’t like it? I’ll refund your money.

@Joshua …

There aren’t any prevenative vaccines for malaria at the moment. There are preventative meds you can take but the problem with those is that they must be taken continually and all the ones I know about are fairly expensive. Another problem is that you can only take them for a few months before you have to stop or run into some problems (though it has been a few years since I was in a malarial zone and on preventative malarial meds myself so I can’t vouch that the pricing and side effects are still the same)

By the way, who is Rachel and why is she wrong? I think I missed something somewhere.

what money craig?

Matt wrote: “what money craig?”

The money you’re NOT paying to read whatever Craig wants to post.

This is Craig’s site. It’s his blog. He can write whatever he wants. (stating the bleeding obvious here, but it seems “the obvious” is not obvious enough for some people!) There’s no law and no contract forcing him to stick to a specific topic or series of topics.

Screenwriters are people, too. They have lives, and interests, outside of writing for the screen.

Craig felt like drawing our attention to something he believes in. His post was also related to something another screenwriter (John August) had recently done. Another screenwriter who committed the mortal sin of not sticking only to obsessing about screenwriting, and actually (GASP) did something else for a couple of weeks and decided to write about it.

You’re free to agree or disagree with what Craig writes but I don’t see what gives you the right to try and dictate what Craig should be writing about.

Nobody forces you to read, and nobody can force Craig to only post whatever you think he should post.

Gaged:

Rachel Carson. Silent Spring.

Mariano,

I’m with you a hundred percent. Everything is material. Everything relates. If Craig wants to write about say, the environment, or perhaps write a post that takes a Limbaugh-esque cheap shot at one of the most important figures in the history of the environmental movement, I think that’s his right. Anyone who thinks politics isn’t a fit topic for a screenwriters forum is a fucking moron who doesn’t have the slightest grasp of what it is to be a writer.

It’s not a cheap shot. If you were educated about this topic, rather than simply being a “dittohead,” you would know that Carson has been challenged by credible environmentalists, and it’s been widely reported that her scientific conclusions were seriously flawed.

Or is The New York Times now considered the print wing of Rush Limbaugh?

Your need for hagiography aside, I must also rebut your cute “gotcha” by pointing out what I thought was obvious: this is not a screenwriting “forum.”

This is my blog. “On topic” is equivalent to “what I write about.” You may comment if you like, of course.

If you want the link to the forum, it’s up top in the navbar.

Craig,

Next time you’re walking through Los Angeles on a nice sunny day and not crawling on your knees, hacking and wheezing, eyes red and runny with the sting of the smog, say a little thank you to Rachel Carson. There’s just a thing you folks who live on that side of the political spectrum like to do, where you take any opportunity to degrade or demonize anyone who’s even slightly progressive. Whenever possible, you try to leave some plausible deniability…. “I was just saying…”

As for the rest - so what you’re saying is, if you, a screenwriter, think a subject is on topic for your writer’s forum, it’s on topic, but if a bunch of screenwriters think a subject is on topic for THEIR forum, it’s NOT on topic. Or something.

Rachel Carson has nothing to do with smog.

Josh -

I think what Craig’s saying is that this is not a forum, it’s a blog.

Public forum - personal blog.

See it?

The idea being it’s okeydokey to share political innuendo on a personal blog, but not to challenge such innuendo in a public forum as to not interfer with the exchange of cookie recipes.

Craig,

Rachel Carson is one of the most important people in the history of the environmental movement. She did more with her book to raise people’s awareness of environmental issues than anyone else, and you can trace the mainstreaming of the movement back to that book.

Just say thank you to the nice lady, because even though she’s not a fire breathing, free-market, pro-war conservative, you owe her more than you know.

Johnny,

Ah, got it. So if I wanted to post unfounded rumours about the personal or professional conduct of people whose posts bugged me, I should do it in a blog? Or a forum?

I wish someone would publish the rules, cos it’s all so confusing.

Let’s remember a key observation from this excellent essay you recommended:

“Most environmental groups don’t object to DDT where it is used appropriately and is necessary to fight malaria. But liberals still tend to consider it a symbol of the Frankenstein effects of unbridled faith in technology. For conservatives, whose Web sites foam at the mouth about the hypocrisy of environmentalists, DDT continues to represent the victory of overzealous regulators and Luddites who misread and distort science.”

Tina Rosenberg also fails to discredit Rachel Carson’s concerns, only noting that Carson did not address the anti-malarial benefits of DDT. My guess is that the folks in “most environmental groups” who support selective DDT use did not burn their copies of Silent Spring.

Bitch slapping Rachel Carson � which you also did over on WA � feels a bit to me like trying to rehabilitate Joe McCarthy. It’s driven more by watching liberals scream than seriously reappraising history. And I suppose only a cynic would wonder if this all comes from a genuine concern for the people of Africa.

Fact is we have cleaner air, cleaner water and safer working conditions today than 40 years ago. And despite the howls of protest from the industries that fought regulation, the American economy somehow managed to thrive. When checking sources, make sure your website isn’t compiled by someone who believes enviromentalists and global warmers seek nothing less than the end of capitalism. Those guys are whack!

I will not sleep until you lick Rachel Carson’s boots.

I’ve never understood why, when something that has liberal or conservative undertones arises, people have to batten down their political hatches. Isn’t it possible that Rachel Carson did in fact do a tremendous service by bringing environmental issues to light, but that perhaps she overstated the horrors of DDT? Or is it possible that DDT is in fact as horrific as previously believed, but for the sake of the millions of African children dying of malaria it’s monitored use in that region might be justified? Both sides can be right here. Not all conservatives are out to destroy the environment for their own personal gain, and not all liberals are out to kill all the African babies.

Except Josh Olson. He definitely wants to kill African babies.

Thursday,

“Both sides can be right here”

You just bought the big lie.

There aren’t two equal and opposite sides to every issue. Some issues have one side. Some have hundreds. When someone who is decidedly an ideological partisan steps into the ring, they taint the whole process.

Taking the position that the people who started the environmental movement did a great deal to make the world better is not a political position. It’s a simple recognition. The water we drink is safer. The air we breathe is cleaner. Duh. But there’s a partisan effort afoot to smear her, because the conservative movement has it in for environmentalists (the movement interferes with the Almighty Free Market).

So when someone preaches partisan ideology, you face this situation - respond to them honestly, and you’re branded an ideologue from the other camp, even if you’re simply setting the record straight.

The big lie is where people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh hide out. If you think they’re loathsome creeps without an ounce of character, you must be a liberal.

Sorry, but I rankle at the notion that standing up for one of the founders of the environmental movement makes me a liberal.

Funny, I rankle at the notion that qualifying an environmental concern makes me a conservative.

Perhaps you and I have more in common than I thought.

Josh:

“Rachel Carson is one of the most important people in the history of the environmental movement. She did more with her book to raise people’s awareness of environmental issues than anyone else, and you can trace the mainstreaming of the movement back to that book.”

This reminds me of Dan Rather’s claim that his Bush ANG story was accurate even though the facts it was based on were false or falsified. If anything, the NYTimes piece Craig linked to is far too kind to Carson and her book. It turns out that much of the “science” it was based on was debunked shortly after the book was written in the sixties by this guy:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html

“Next time you’re walking through Los Angeles on a nice sunny day and not crawling on your knees, hacking and wheezing, eyes red and runny with the sting of the smog, say a little thank you to Rachel Carson.”

Of course the 50 million people who’ve died from malaria since DDT fell from favor might differ with you on that, if they could. You may disagree with some of what Professor Edwards says, but I think he makes a very good case that Carson was deceitful. Carl Sagan reportedly said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Given the horrific consequences that followed publication of Silent Spring, is it too much to expect that anybody writing a book this significant should at least get their facts straight?

As progressives might say: Carson lied. Fifty million died.

Gary Cameron

Here’s an interesting piece on what DDT accomplished, and what it could potentially have accomplished:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/miqa4020/is200201/ain9036488/pg1

Here’s a different perspective on Rush Limbaugh’s contribution to this debate:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20901

Gary,

Jesus Christ. You’re really gonna come in here, say Limbaugh deserves a Nobel, and expect to be taken seriously?

Hilarious.

“Jesus Christ. You’re really gonna come in here, say Limbaugh deserves a Nobel, and expect to be taken seriously?”

Actually, I didn’t say that, although I do find the idea of Limbaugh and Gore competing for the same prize extremely amusing. Hey, if Mohamed ElBaradei can win one, why not Rush?

It does raise a serious issue, however. You mentioned earlier that: “When someone who is decidedly an ideological partisan steps into the ring, they taint the whole process.” I think the left could learn a valuable lesson from the Carson/DDT debacle, in that those on the left who are hitching their wagons to the issue of global warming (like, for instance, Al Gore) might well be stepping out on yet another limb by blaming it on us humans. The fact that they have thoroughly politicized this issue even though the definitive scientific proof still doesn’t exist (should we trust the fine folks who can’t even forecast tomorrow’s weather accurately when they tell us we’re causing global warming?) may well come back to bite them in the butt. Just being helpful.

Gary

Thanks for an - as always - fascinating look at the through the looking glass world of the modern day rabid conservative ideologue. Didn’t know you folks still showed your faces in public these days. Interesting.

Josh:

“Thanks for an - as always - fascinating look at the through the looking glass world of the modern day rabid conservative ideologue. Didn’t know you folks still showed your faces in public these days. Interesting.”

Actually, I’ve been reading your recent posts with growing concern, as they seem to be getting more and more nonsensical and repetitive, almost robotic in nature. It occurrs to me that perhaps the online Josh Olson has been replaced by some kind of AI post-generator that just huffs and puffs and blows lots of smoke, generating the same old tired lefty spin ad nauseum. Can anybody here honestly say they’ve seen online Josh Olson and the Huffington Post server together in the same room? I thought not!

Can the “real” Josh Olson come out to play?

“You don’t look like no rootin’ tootin’ son of a bitchin’ cold-blooded assassin.”

Gary

Sorry to disappoint. You seem nice enough, but life’s too short to debate politics with people who buy into the whole Limbaugh thing. It’s sort of like discussing quantum physics with people who’ve learned science from old Flash Gordon serials…

I really am amazed there are still people who cling to this stuff. It’s genuinely fascinating.

Josh:

Pity.

Gary