Rachel Carson & Malaria

http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070604_106059_106059

This page has an article that breaks down the history of Carson and how public percption was swindled into glorifying her work despite the greater issues at hand.
"Websites and op-ed pages accuse her of a straight-line responsibility for the deaths of millions of Third World malaria and yellow fever victims since the 1970s. That's when, the critics say, a Carson-inspired ban on DDT destroyed humanity's best defence against the disease-bearing mosquitoes that kill more than a million people every year. Having used DDT in the First World long enough to wipe out malaria there, they add, eco-imperialists now prevent its use anywhere, saving African birds at the cost of African children, malaria's prime victims."
According to her critics, Carson portrayed the scientists as destructive but, in reality , their mission was to defend humanity. In other words, they were playing defense not offense (or being hostile for you lacking a sports mentality). It's funny that when we were inquired about our opinions of her I stayed silent because I had a hunch that she was "guilty" of something. We must spray because a black genocide can't happen. Forget the birds, bugs and all those other creatures. Save the children! Besides, medical conditions in the long-run is better than death or illness in the short-run. This plan beats the average life expectancy for blacks in America the way our lives are going anyhow, especially males. We need to give the young a chance to live and at least grow.
The WHO program gave up on the tropics, but we need a new program and funding to overcome where they failed. "Controlling" the disease means keeping it in tropics. They're Third World and it's not their fault they're infected. Somebody needs to put international heathcare programs on blast then to work.

Animal Testing1

It's unfortunate that animals die or at least suffer from cosmetic and medical testing. Their infliction is due to a problem that isn't theirs. But doesn't that sound familiar among humans: With civilians paying for war they don't support, taxpayers funding abortions, and the general public dealing with foreign languages even when illegal immigration is a huge problem (But weren't the immigrants supposed to be the ones adapting beforehand?)? I know this sounds harsh (even on human terms) but it simply seems like a necessary but cruel matter. As humans, the "intellegent" ones, the least we could do is not jeopardize our own safety or create more complications. I do feel bad for the animals; don't get me wrong, they are scientific scapegoats . But they're just that--animals! That means beast of the Earth, food for our bodies and pieces for clothing, decorations and materials we use. There's little difference, yet, this has a productive cause; it's not a "Cruella de Vil" situation.
In reality, it's not a moral problem but perhaps a scientific problem (or more accurately, a moral problem with the scientists): what psycho would even think to or, even worse, attempt to use deadly chemicals for something as simple as hair and them distribute it? And why would poison be medicine (Ignoring the few exceptions of history, what would possess you to this in the first place)? That's the real issue, one that may deserve capital punishment by rational people. They essentially endanger everyone making them equivalent to a terrorist. So don't get mad at me "animal-lovers". They're the enemy.

Statistics

Your actual odds of winning the lottery depend on where you play, but single state lotteries usually have odds of about 18 million to 1 while multiple state lotteries have odds as high as 120 million to 1.

Chances of Playing Football in the NFL: About nine in 10,000, or 0.09 percent.
Chances of Playing Basketball in the NBA: About three in 10,000, or 0.03 percent.

Chances of Playing Basketball in the WNBA: About one in 5,000, or 0.02 percent.
Chances of Playing Baseball in the MLB: About one in 6,600, or 0.015 percent.
Chances of Playing Hockey in the NHL: About one in 250, or 0.4 percent.

So are you feeling lucky or talented?

Animal Testing

I think it is very unfortunate for animals to die or at least suffer from cosmetic and medical testings. They are victims of a problem that isn't theirs. But doesn't this sound familiar here in America: with taxpayers funding abortions by reckless females, young males facing the "call to duty" for a war that they did not start or agree with, or the general public having to adjust to foreign languages to cater to immigrants, even illegals in social security, despite their failure to pay taxes (But wait: aren't foreigners supposed to adapt to us? They came here uninvited, right?). Don't get me wrong, I'm a humanitarian with foreign friends and American pride but peopla as a whole should be considerate, even on the burden they cause. The point is this: as humans, the "intelligent" ones, we shouldn't put animal lives before our own or make our lives more difficult than necessary. So what about animals? I hear too many people that have a passion for supporting and defending animals but in elections or discussion, treat humans and their problems like "animals". By "animals" I  mean beasts of the Earth, food for us and themselves, and pieces for clothing, and materials we use daily--simply insignificant to humans. I can't stand the role reversal. I've seen the beast in dogs, for instance, plenty of times with vicious growls and barks so they aren't hard to belittle in  significance. However, I do feel bad for animals. Once again,  they are victims. But I will add this: I cannot disapprove of the testings in theory b/c they're directed toward a beneficial cause instead of one like the "need" for a new fur coat...(selfish).

There is a huge moral issue at hand, but it is not abuse toward animals. It's an internal issue with the scientists: What kind of psycho would think to use or, even worse, attempt to use deadly chemicals for something as simple as hair and then distribute it to the masses? And, ignoring the few exceptions in history, what would possess you to try poison as medicine in the first place (They're opposites, right?)? This kind of person endangers everyone's lives and is equivalent to a terrorist. Capital punishment anyone? This is who you "animal-lovers" and others who oppose my earlier views should direct your frustrations at.