Thursday, June 30, 2005


The AP is reporting today that President Bush is again pushing for MORE money for Africa... This time to help with large-scale malaria outbreaks:
President Bush on Thursday called for spending $1.2 billion to cut malaria deaths in half by 2010 in Africa where many of its victims are children. "In the overwhelming majority of cases the victims are less than 5 years old


The malaria initiative aims to provide tens of millions of dollars to Tanzania, Uganda and Angola in the first year, adding at least four more countries in 2007 and at least five more in 2008 for an eventual total spending of $1.2 billion, Bush said. The president said his proposal would eventually cover 175 million people in at least 15 nations most affected by the disease.

"We know that large-scale action can defeat this disease in whole regions and the world must take action," Bush said. "Together we can lift this threat and defeat this fear across the African continent."

The problem here is, the malaria outbreaks that the African continent is now experiencing are a direct result of out-of-control, liberal, eco-freaks. The elite of Europe and the U.S. deemed long ago that DDT, a superbly effective chemical in combating mosquito outbreaks, shouldn't be used because it was harmful to the environment. Now, there is a de facto worldwide ban on the substance. Because mosquito's are the primary transmission devices for malaria, it seems obvious that politicians could see the wisdom in allowing Africa to re-start of the use of DDT to control their mosquito problem, and therefore, their malaria problems. In fact, this is exactly what Africans want...
We have heard a lot about "African voices" and "what Africans want" recently. One thing they want is to be able to use DDT, or at least a reliable alternative. During a visit to Berlin in May, Alcinda Abreu, Mozambique foreign minister asked the industrialised world to "provide alternative methods to fight malaria or else drop opposition to using DDT against mosquitoes." Following reports that DDT was harmful to the environment, it was banned in the USA by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1972. This led to an effective worldwide ban, as countries dependent on US-funded aid agencies stopped their use of the pesticide.

Now, as malaria death rates rise in Africa and other parts of the third world, some Africans are demanding change. When she was asked about environmental campaigners who oppose the use of DDT, Alcinda Abreu said, "They have to give us alternatives... not blah, blah, blah." She proposed the development of an "effective and easy to administer vaccine," and said that Mozambique intended to start re-testing the use of DDT in the fight against malaria because no reliable alternative had been developed. Other countries, including Zimbabwe, have also said they will start using DDT again.


Even representatives from the WWF and Greenpeace were quoted in the New York Times on 8 January 2005 as saying that they would accept the use of DDT "if the alternative isn't working as they didn't in South Africa... if there's nothing else, and it's going to save lives, we're in favour of it. Nobody is dogmatic about it."

The real issue is about saving the lives of people in Africa and Asia where 20 million people have died from malaria since 1981, deaths that could have been prevented by DDT.

So, here you have a disease outbreak, which has caused 20 million deaths over the past 20 years, all because liberals claimed that DDT hurt the environment. This is outrageous. 20 million dead because some nut job scientist said DDT was unsafe over 40 years ago? Does anyone else find this atrocious? And then, here's the kicker: For a problem, which never should have been a problem in the first place, our President now wants to throw another $1 Billion over the fence for African aid. Remember, this is after the $15 Billion we are spending on AIDS there, and the $40 Billion in debt we have just forgiven...