Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - H.L. Mencken

Lessons of the Free Market
by Lee

Lesson 1:  You cannot sell a product that nobody wants, no matter how much star power is attached to it.

One minute, Heather Graham was the face of ABC. The next minute, she was gone. Her comedy series “Emily’s Reasons Why Not” was promoted relentlessly by the network as the linchpin of its post-football Monday night schedule, but was only given one airing before being yanked earlier this month.

ABC committed to the big promotional campaign before even seeing a script for the show, said ABC entertainment president Stephen McPherson on Saturday. The series turned out to be a dog creatively, he indicated.

“Once we saw it was not launching, we felt like unfortunately it was not going to get better and we had to make a change,” McPherson said.

Lesson 2:  Once an environmentally unsound practice is identified, passing legislation to rectify the situation can often lead to different problems in other areas.

Britons waste the equivalent of around two power stations worth of electricity each year by leaving TV sets and other gadgets on standby.

Last June Environment Minister Elliot Morley, responding to an MP’s question, revealed that electrical equipment in sleep mode used roughly 7TWh of power and emitted around 800,000 tonnes of carbon.

The government is currently reviewing the options of how to keep the UK’s lights on in the future, at the same time as reducing the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.  …

So, as fears about global warming and a looming energy crisis dominate the headlines, is it time to say, “bye-bye to standby?”

It is not that simple, Mr Armishaw told the BBC, because of the very competitive nature of the global electronic goods market.

“Most electronic goods are made in the Far East, and are designed for several different markets.

“If the UK introduced a mandatory minimum eco-standard for its TV producers [i.e. getting rid of the standby button], costs would increase because a special model would have to be made for the UK market.

Lesson 3:  The free market will always find a way to provide every need for everyone on the planet all of the time. 

The oil sands have been in the ground for millions of years, but for decades, prospectors lost millions of dollars trying to squeeze the oil out of the sand. It simply cost too much.

T. Boone Pickens, a legendary Texas oil tycoon, was working Alberta’s traditional oil rigs back in the ‘60s and remembers how he and his colleagues thought mining for oil sands was a joke.

“Here we are sitting there having a drink after work and somebody said this isn’t going to, it isn’t possible. It’ll all have to be subsidized to a level, said, before they’d make money you’d have to have $5 oil,” Pickens says laughing. “We never thought it would happen.”

But then $40 a barrel happened and the oil sands not only made sense, they made billions for the people digging them.

Oh how I love the market.  Sweet, sweet capitalism.

Posted by Lee on 01/22/06 at 11:34 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by mikeguas on 01/23/06 at 01:17 AM from United States

Lesson 2:  Once an environmentally unsound practice is identified, passing legislation to rectify the situation can often lead to different problems in other areas.

I was just reading a story on CNN.com about the return of bed bugs. One reason for the problem: Outlawing DDT. Of course millions have also died from Malaria due to banning DDT, but environmental groups don’t care.

The proposed solution to the bed bug problem is to regulate mattress companies. Of course DDT could help. The problem with regulating mattress companies is that these little bastards can live in furnature and walls too. Once again good ole lawmakers passing laws that look like they’re doing something to help, but do nothing except raise the price of a product. In this case mattresses.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 04:08 AM from Japan

Outlawing DDT. Of course millions have also died from Malaria due to banning DDT, but environmental groups don’t care.

Section 8. Don’t go down this road. The whole “DDT could have saved millions” thing is a demonstrable hoax.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 07:40 AM from Europe

Demonstrable hoax stogy? I didn’t think so, and it appears these guys don’t either.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 08:00 AM from Japan

approved a treaty allowing for the continued use of DDT in disease vector control as the United Nations Environment Program concluded the fifth and FINAL round of negotiations on a treaty to ban persistent organic pollutants

Thanks Patrick - actually, it proves my point, rather than contradicts it. Particular uses of DDT have never been banned in quite a few nations with persistent malarial problems, paticularly for use within domestic and not agricultural settings. The problem with DDT is that its half life is almost twice as long as other comparable insecticides - essentially, it stays in nature for up twelve years in non-lethal (for insects) quantities, promoting very active resistance in its intended targets.

DDT was only meant to be used for a few years before being phased out - many countries had started to reduce outdoor usage prior to the publication of Rachel Carson’s (remember, Rachel Carson=Hitler) book.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 08:13 AM from Europe

Stogy, I agree with you that DDT is a long-lived chemical, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not the cheapest, most effective way of fighting malaria known. It saves lives - and that’s no hoax.

Can you direct me to any (credible) site which states otherwise?

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:11 AM from Japan

Can you direct me to any (credible) site which states otherwise?

Patrick - I don’t have a lot of time now. I have a deadline soon. The problem is not the cost - the problem is that if we were still using DDT in even moderate quantities outdoors, it would be almost completely inneffective by now.

Links coming when I get a moment.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:12 AM from United States

A lot of us work under the operating belief that banning DDT has cost millions of lives....that malaria was nearly wiped out, but with the restriction of DDT, its has shot back up to millions of cases per year, and over the years, millinos of deaths. 

This is all a hoax?  That’s a pretty strong statement.  I’d like to hear more about how you know that.  Please, seriously, why do you say its a hoax?

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:14 AM from United States

Oh, ok, you are saying that a resistance would have built up, making DDT ineffective....well I’d like to hear about that, since I have never heard anyone else on either side of the debate make that claim.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/23/06 at 09:18 AM from United States

Isn’t it self-proven? Stogy said so, and that should be enough, and the facts of the matter be damned!

{/moonbat logic}

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:35 AM from United States

Oh, ok, you are saying that a resistance would have built up, making DDT ineffective…

Resistance is worthwhile only when their is something to resist against.  DDT was show some loss in efficacy before it was banned.  Since then the insects that were becoming resistant have gone through many generations.

While there are still insects that carry resistance to DDT, there are lots that don’t.  DDT can be used to control them again.  There area other shorter lived products available, but they cost a lot more.

Use of an organochlorine like DDT in the walls and ceilings of homes is an effective population control for mosquitoes.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:35 AM from Japan

Isn’t it self-proven? Stogy said so, and that should be enough, and the facts of the matter be damned!

My dear friend. How can I get any work done with you making all that racket. Wait your turn, dammit!

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:52 AM from Japan

Use of an organochlorine like DDT in the walls and ceilings of homes is an effective population control for mosquitoes.

Spoony, that’s exactly right. Many countries have ongoing spraying programs for this. It was never completely banned.

I don’t think I am going to have time for links, so let’s go with DW’s approach. I say it’s true, and you believe it.

;)

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 10:13 AM from United States

I had a lot of friends in the tar sands industry and it will be the future of oil for us.  The reserves make the middle east look like piss in a puddle.  The only thing, we’ll have to kiss some Canadian ass instead of some raghead.  But, we could easily overtake Canada militarily if we have to...(insert liberal head explosion here)

The particular 60 Minutes piece Lee quotes above showed the customary hippie chick enviro whack-o from Sierra Club decrying the whole tar sands concept...what a shocker.  She’s more upset about feeding the US oil apetite than the “evironmental destruction” of mining.  Ever notice how them Sierra Club gals are always uglier than a bucket full of assholes?

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 10:21 AM from Japan

There was a good article in “Parasitology Research”, as I remember. I don’t have the article here, but I found the abstract for you.

Enjoy.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 10:29 AM from Europe

Thanks Stogy, but I don’t think anyone is arguing that the bugs can’t evolve a resistance to pesticides. What we do dispute is that there was some kind of global hoax perpetrated for 20-odd years just to keep the DDT factories in business, or some equally unlikely purpose.

I’d like to continue, but I’ve got to go now…

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 10:47 AM from Japan

Sorry Patrick - it seems we have been talking at cross-purposes. The hoax I was referring to was the “environmentalists banned DDT and caused a million plus deaths” one, when resistance to its agricultural use would have ended its effectiveness.

I know that many environmental groups oppose its continued use, but I can’t see that stopping in the near future unless someone is going to kick in funding for more expensive alternatives. The continued agricultural use of DDT (sold on the black market) is causing problems, too…

I am going too. Missed my deadline...erk

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 11:01 AM from United States

Wow!

I like Heather Graham.  Very easy on the eyes, but I was not hopeful for the series, as it sounded like a “Sex and the City” knockoff.  HG is INFINITELY more attractive than Sarah Parker, IMO.

Also, the Athabasca Tar Sands was the subject of one of my moonbat geography professors special topics at Michigan State in an elective I took....In 1980!  That guy had some vision, as he stated basically that it will supply all of our oil needs for much longer than the ME will.  He then went on the decry the potential damage to the Canadien/Albertan ecology....arghhhhh!  The fact that he didn’t root for NOT mining the stuff was probably due to the liberal “hate all things US” mindset not being developed to such a high level at that time.  Or perhaps his mind was still foggy from the 60’s?

Dave D.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 11:35 AM from United States

I don’t think I am going to have time for links,

Why am I not surprised?

so let’s go with DW’s approach. I say it’s true, and you believe it.

TRANSLATION: I can’t find any credible links to back up my assertion.

There was a good article in “Parasitology Research”, as I remember. I don’t have the article here, but I found the abstract for you.

TRANSLATION: Since I can’t find any credible links that back up my “That DDT could have saved millions is a hoax” assertion, I’ll just link an article about insecticide resistance to bolster my claim in a “nuanced” way.

The “That DDT could have saved millions is a hoax” assertion was started off by a blogger named Tim Lambert and was picked up by the more *ahem* liberal” of the “envionmentalists”

Here’s an article (and more links in the sidebar) to provide a counterpoint.

and another.

As stogy would say, “Enjoy”.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 11:55 AM from Japan

Thanks for the TIm Lambert link, I heard it from a professor of epidemiology a few years back. You disagree with it? On what grounds? This is an issue that the right has been trying to bash the left over the head with for the past few years. The debate is driven by ideology and not science.

The counterpoints you posted ignore the central issue of drug resistance. I said the problem with DDT is resistance and I posted some evidence for it. You posted two articles calling for the return of DDT, which has never been internationally[/i ]banned for indoor use for countries which have really needed it. One of the articles is by the author of the crappy, misleading DDT story on the junkscience website, which is a great example of misleading junk science in itself.

The WHO recommendations are right on target. Indoor use for countries where it’s needed to stop Malaria, use other chemicals with shorter half-lives outside. Cycle through the drugs, so that resistance is limited. Do more research on treatments for the disease.

Now, GOP, if you are advocating a return to outdoor DDT use, you have to tell me why. You have to tell me how you are going to get around the resistance problem. You have to tell me how it’s going to be effective long-term. If you don’t think it needs to be used outside, then you agree with me anyway.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 11:56 AM from Japan

oops! Sorry! I thought I closed them.

erk!

Posted by mikeguas on 01/23/06 at 12:52 PM from United States

I said the problem with DDT is resistance and I posted some evidence for it.

You also said the whole DDT thing was a hoax, which you have not as of yet supplied anything to support that claim. Guess what Stogy, just about everything in this world used to eradicate an organism, will result in some resistance to the drug, toxin, etc, but that doesn’t mean it’s not effective. To say that DDT was a hoax is to say the penicillin is a hoax. The fact is cases of malaria grew substantially after the ban on DDT. Environmental activist have been known for their elitist view on the world, primarily those in America and Europe, where as long as it is just some third world dipshit dying, it must be good for the environment. Population control you know. None of these guys are willing to give up their lives in the name of saving the world. Don’t they know charity begins at home?

Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem.”

There are also some other gems from this site. I’ve read all these quotes in one article or another over time, bet they are here as well. But it’s all about science that motivates these people right?

Link

Posted by sneaky_pete on 01/23/06 at 01:00 PM from United States

test

Posted by sneaky_pete on 01/23/06 at 01:01 PM from United States

Ha!  I fixed it.  I rule.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 01:45 PM from United States

Dammit, Stogy, will you please get back to the core issue about how hot Heather Graham is?

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 02:04 PM from United States

The debate is driven by ideology and not science.

That’s hardly a rebuttal but I’ll agree with that. It also applies to both sides.

One of the articles is by the author of the crappy, misleading DDT story on the junkscience website

Why is it “crappy” and “misleading”? Is it because it dares to criticize liberal environmentalist orthodoxy?

Again, that’s hardly a rebuttal but I’ll ask this question. If you disagree with those articles, tell me on what grounds?

Please provide links to prove your assertions.

I said the problem with DDT is resistance and I posted some evidence for it.

Yet again, not a rebuttal so I’ll ask, What “evidence”?

I could label Tim Lambert’s assertions about DDT resistance “junkscience” as easily as you labeled Edward’s and Malloy’s assertions “junkscience”..

You posted two articles calling for the return of DDT, which has never been internationally banned for indoor use for countries which have really needed it.

Still waiting for a rebuttal. Just so you know, We were talking about outdoor use.

Now, GOP, if you are advocating a return to outdoor DDT use, you have to tell me why. You have to tell me how you are going to get around the resistance problem. You have to tell me how it’s going to be effective long-term. If you don’t think it needs to be used outside, then you agree with me anyway.

Rather than provide a rebuttal, I see you going to sidestep by asking questions so I’ll respond with this.

You yourself claimed that DDT has been limited to indoor use. If true, such limited use would hardly cause organisms to develop a resistance to it, now would it?

Could organisms develop a resistance to DDT in the long term? Probably, but the thing is, they’d develop a resistance to any insecticide used “long term”.

DDT is effective and cheap so why not use it outdoors?

Since “Silent Spring” has been debunked as a “crappy, misleading DDT story”, I don’t see a problem.

Still waiting for a rebuttal…

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 08:20 PM from United States

Heard a news story today that relates to DDT.  Apparently bedbugs are making a come back in the U.S.  Becoming quite the problem in New York.  And the reason they say that this is happening is due to the increase in world travel and the banning of pesticides like DDT.

Posted by mikeguas on 01/23/06 at 08:29 PM from United States

Doesn’t matter Buzzion. Stogy will never approve of DDT, unless perhaps, it can be proven effective for Hamas to use on the evil Joooos in Israel.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:02 PM from United States

It probably would be section8, but then you know they might develop a resistance to it and then DDT would be useless to the Palis in killing those babyblood drinking jooooos.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:22 PM from Japan

Why is it “crappy” and “misleading”? Is it because it dares to criticize liberal environmentalist orthodoxy?

Again, that’s hardly a rebuttal but I_ll ask this question. If you disagree with those articles, tell me on what grounds?

On what grounds? They completely ignore the problem of resistance. I said the problem with DDT is resistance and I posted some evidence for it. Let’s use the example of Sri Lanka showing the spread of resistance to DDT:

Sri Lanka had started large scale spray operation in 1947 and achieved tremendous success too.  The spectacular successes of the early years of the malaria eradication programme were nullified by the country-wide epidemic in 1967/1968, when over half a million cases were detected.  The epidemic pressure relented in subsequent years, and by 1972, the incidence was brought down to 132 605 detected cases.  The situation thereafter reversed once- again and the number of cases detected increased progressively to 400 777 in 1975 with a Slide Positivity Rate of 26.7%. The most alarming fact in the malaria situation was the increase in the proportion of P. falciparum infections which, from less than 0.5% in 1968, reached 8.3% in 1974, and almost doubled to 15.9% in 1975.  The number of deaths due to P.falciparum has also increased.  With widespread resistance of A. culicifacies to DDT, malathion spraying was introduced in 1975 in areas of P.falciparum transmission affording protection to nearly one million people.  Towards the end of 1976 DDT spraying was completely discontinued and during 1977 exclusively malathion was used as an adulticide.

You asked about my rebuttal. That was it. The evidence was a rebuttal, which you chose to ignore. You could also read, by the way, the letter by Dr Alan Lymbery, originally published in The Australian, reprinted in the UnAustralian where he said:

DDT is not used for outdoor mosquito control, partly because scientific studies have demonstrated toxicity to wildlife, but mainly because its persistence in the environment rapidly leads to the development of resistance to the insecticide in mosquito populations. There are now much more effective and acceptable insecticides, such as Bacillus thuringiensis, to kill larval mosquitoes outdoors.

Reductions in the use of DDT did occur in a number of developing nations after the US ban in 1972. This reflected concerns over environmental consequences of DDT, but was also a result of many other factors. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. This problem, in fact, was anticipated by Carson: “No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored . . . The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse.”

He also said, and I agree:

Most nations where malaria is a problem, and most health professionals working in the field of malaria control, support the targeted use of DDT, as part of the tool kit for malaria control. Most also agree that more cost-effective, less environmentally persistent alternatives are needed. There are some effective alternative chemicals for the control of adult mosquitoes, but preventing their further development is lack of invest ment by industry, because malaria is largely a disease of the poor.

You also said that Silent Spring has been debunked. Some of the studies have been shown to be incorrect, but others still hold.

You said:

Could organisms develop a resistance to DDT in the long term? Probably, but the thing is, they_d develop a resistance to any insecticide used _long term_.

Exactly. So why throw away DDT, one of the biggest weapons against Malaria? You either use it a lot over a very short period of time (which is what was done in 1946), trying to wipe out entire populations before resistance arises (and then not at all for quite some period) or you use it very sparingly, limiting the exposure to situations where maximum benefit can be applied.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:23 PM from Japan

I have just spent an hour on Google but I can’t find a single reputable site calling for the resumption of outdoor use. Not even the Cato Institute - who recognized that outdoor spraying had caused environmental problems:

Although widespread outdoor use of DDT years ago did have adverse environmental consequences, poor nations throughout Africa and South Asia are literally begging for assistance in undertaking carefully targeted indoor spraying.

So it’s just you wanting it resumed. And a bunch of hokeys with a beef against the environmental movement.

Your turn. Answer the questions (which you didn’t). How are you going to use DDT outdoors without recreating the problem of resistance? Why are you advocating something which no reputable scientist is? Why are you throwing away one of the biggest weapons we still have against Malaria?

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:25 PM from Japan

Doesn’t matter Buzzion. Stogy will never approve of DD

I have already said, I support the continuing use of DDT indoors.

Unless you actually read what I say before you spout off, then I am wasting my time here.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:26 PM from Japan

Dammit, Stogy, will you please get back to the core issue about how hot Heather Graham is?

Yes, Heather Graham is hot. Happy now?

Posted by mikeguas on 01/23/06 at 09:30 PM from United States

Unless you actually read what I say before you spout off, then I am wasting my time here.

I knew I could push your buttons eventually.

Anyhow, the use of DDT indoors is useless. Mosquitoes breed in puddles outdoors, and most people don’t have wet ponds inside their house. Not only that, but people do go outside their house, even in third world counties.

Posted by on 01/23/06 at 09:53 PM from Japan

I knew I could push your buttons eventually.

Anyhow, the use of DDT indoors is useless. Mosquitoes breed in puddles outdoors, and most people don’t have wet ponds inside their house. Not only that, but people do go outside their house, even in third world counties.

Great. Then it can stick to the soil and wash down into the rivers in a non-lethal form. Spread resistance. Make it ineffective for any use whatsoever. Also it acts as an endocryne disrupter. It is listed as a probable carcinogen in the US. There have been few long term studies of exposure, particularly for children (they just can’t find enough people who are willing to drink the stuff). The animal tests haven’t painted a partiucarly rose picture, though.

The use of DDT indoors, sprayed in places where mosquitoes are likely to land, and use in conjunction with pesticide laced bed nets is widely thought to be effective.

Gotta do some work.

Posted by on 01/24/06 at 06:23 AM from United States

On what grounds? They completely ignore the problem of resistance. I said the problem with DDT is resistance and I posted some evidence for it. Let’s use the example of Sri Lanka showing the spread of resistance to DDT:

So a resistance problem showed up in Shri lanka. That doesn’t mean that the resistance is manifest in other areas of the world.

You asked about my rebuttal. That was it. The evidence was a rebuttal, which you chose to ignore. You could also read, by the way, the letter by Dr Alan Lymbery, originally published in The Australian, reprinted in the UnAustralian where he said:

A story about DDT resistance in Shri Lanka doesn’t mean it’s ineffective in other parts of the world.

As far as the letter written by Dr. Lymbery goes, I can just dismiss him as a “hokey” trying to maintain the environmentalist wacko “DDT is evil” charade just as easily as you dismiss sources that don’t kowtow to your views.

You also said that Silent Spring has been debunked. Some of the studies have been shown to be incorrect, but others still hold.

Oh really? Which ones “still hold”? Remember, this is the stuff that you’re advocating should be sprayed indoors.

So why throw away DDT, one of the biggest weapons against Malaria?

Er, you’re the one who’s claiming that DDT is ineffective due to the ability of organisms to rapidly build up a resistance.

You either use it a lot over a very short period of time (which is what was done in 1946),

Which according to your article was extremely effective.

trying to wipe out entire populations before resistance arises

Sorry, but no insecticide can wipe out entire populations of insects. However, you can reduce it to an “acceptable level”.

Shri Lanka apparently attempted to eradicate its mosquito problem by overusing DDT to the extreme.

They would have run into the resistance problem no matter what insecticide they used.

or you use it very sparingly, limiting the exposure to situations where maximum benefit can be applied.

Including outdoors. I think we might reach a consensus here.

I have just spent an hour on Google but I can’t find a single reputable site calling for the resumption of outdoor use.

I suppose that your definition of “reputable” is “It has to support my liberal (insert cause here) dogma”.

Posted by on 01/24/06 at 06:24 AM from United States

So it’s just you wanting it resumed. And a bunch of hokeys with a beef against the environmental movement.

As opposed to you wanting it banned er, used (ineffectively) indoors, along with a “bunch of hokeys” who bought into Rachel Carson’s claptrap and are trying to maintain their reputations? 

Your turn. Answer the questions (which you didn’t).

Sure I did. The problem is (to quote you), ”Unless you actually read what I say before you spout off, then I am wasting my time here.

Why are you advocating something which no reputable scientist is?

Again, your definition of “reputable scientist” is “he/she has to support my liberal (insert cause here) dogma” so the question is pointless.

Why are you throwing away one of the biggest weapons we still have against Malaria?

Er, I’m not the one screeching about using DDT only indoors where it’s effectiveness would obviously be limited. Especially if you stepped outside

Great. Then it can stick to the soil and wash down into the rivers in a non-lethal form. Spread resistance. Make it ineffective for any use whatsoever. Also it acts as an endocryne disrupter. It is listed as a probable carcinogen in the US. There have been few long term studies of exposure, particularly for children (they just can’t find enough people who are willing to drink the stuff). The animal tests haven’t painted a partiucarly rose picture, though.

I know you’re getting hysterical when you start spewing Rachel Carsonlike environmentalist wacko rhetoric.

The use of DDT indoors, sprayed in places where mosquitoes are likely to land, and use in conjunction with pesticide laced bed nets is widely thought to be effective.

Wait a minute. You just said that DDT is an endocryne disruptor, a probable carcinogen, lamented it’s probable ill-effects on children
and animals yet you have no problem with spraying this stuff indoors ”in places where mosquitoes are likely to land,” (which is everywhere including people and “pesticide laced bed nets.”)

You can’t have it both ways but nice try.

To summarize, I’m not advocating saturating the landscape with DDT in an attempt to totally eradicate malaria bearing mosquitos.

As you pointed out, Such an approach was tried in Shri Lanka with the result being the “resistance problem”.

Like I said before, Insects are versatile creatures. They’re capable of developing a resistance to any insecticide if it is overused.

A targeted (As in spraying it in specific areas and not dousing the entire landscape) approach outdoors and indoors would most likely be quite effective.

On the other hand, we can just chuck this argument and advocate the widespread distribution of this stuff.

*grin*

Posted by on 01/24/06 at 06:26 AM from United States

Correction: I meant Sri Lanka, not “Shri Lanka”.

I should really drink more coffee before I comment in the morning....

*grin*

Next entry: Click To Give

Previous entry: Drink On

<< Back to main