Norman Borlaug died yesterday. If you don’t know who he was, read up about him on Wiki. The short version is this: he’s directly responsible for saving more than 254 MILLION human lives due to his research and efforts.
Looking at the CNN.com website, there’s nothing about his death on the front page (but there is this vital news item: “‘Vampire’ actresses busted for flashing”). More, a search on CNN.com for “Borlaug” finds precisely two stories… one from 2002, the other from 1999. Apparently 245,000,000 people can be wrong.
In contrast, look at the coverage lavished over the death of Ted Kennedy, a man who spent decades in the Senate and accomplished almost nothign good. Instead of saving 245 million people, he’s directly responsible for at least one… a death that didn’t seem to do a thing to damage his career of self-service. A search for “Ted Kennedy” on CNN.com produced at least 45 pages of results (I stopped clicking at 45, who knows how many there really are).
Why the disparity? Well, Borlaug’s work wasn’t just to help the poor around the world… but to make them self-sufficient. This does not aid certain ideologies that require people to be dependant upon government largess. Additionally, there was this:
Of environmental lobbyists he has stated, “some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things”.
Watch a ten-minute piece on Borlaug and his dumbass opponents HERE, courtesy Penn & Teller.
26 Responses to “Compare and contrast: Kennedy vs. Borlaug”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Kennedy notwithstanding:
Borlaug, who saved millions from hunger, dies_ – 21 minutes ago
DALLAS — Scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug rose from his childhood on an Iowa farm to develop a type of wheat that helped feed the world …
The Associated Press – 808 related articles »
. Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity – 97.01About environmental innovator Norman Borlaug. … Norman Borlaug, the agronomist whose discoveries sparked the Green Revolution, has saved literally …
. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm – Similar
. Norman Borlaug DeadSep 13, 2009 … DALLAS — Scientist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Norman Borlaug rose from his childhood on an Iowa farm to develop a type of wheat that …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/norman-borlaug-dead_n_284886.html – 5 hours ago
Norman Borlaug, Leader of the Green Revolution, Dies at 95 …
Dr. Borlaug, the winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, developed high-yielding crop varieties that helped to avert mass famines across the globe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/…/14borlaug.html – 14 hours ago
Huh. Associated Press, New York Times, and the HUFFINGTON POST (not to mention I heard and obit on NPR). “Wrong again, Oxmyx.”
> Huh. Associated Press, New York Times, and the HUFFINGTON POST (not to mention I heard and obit on NPR). “Wrong again, Oxmyx.”
And how does their coverage compare to their love-fest for Ted Kennedy? or did you miss that kinda-important point I was trying to make?
[…] to my earlier posting about the difference in coverage between the deaths of the worthy Norman Borlaug and the unworthy […]
No, I didn’t miss — or ignore — it. But the fact is that ANY “public” figure (Kennedy, Reagan, Michael Jackson) is going to draw more and lengthier coverage than a scientist, author, or businessman. To “if it bleeds, it leads” could be added “if they’re well-known, they draw.” Simple free-market business economics, Scott. No conspiracy other than that of populism.
> But the fact is that ANY “public” figure (Kennedy, Reagan, Michael Jackson) is going to draw more and lengthier coverage than a scientist, author, or businessman.
Yes, indeed. And that’s the tragedy. And of course, some public figures, such as Kennedy, were substantially undeserving of their public figure status, making it even worse.
> No conspiracy other than that of populism.
What is it with some people and your conspiracy theories? People do not need conspiracies to behave in predictable ways. Communists do not need to conspire to try to take everyone’s stuff. Racists do not need to conspire to hate other races. Dogs do not need to conspire to bark. And the press does not need to conspire in order to miss the actually important news in favor of the mindless pap. That’s just what they all do.
>…the press does not need to conspire in order to miss the actually important news in favor of the mindless pap. That’s just what they all do.
Well, Scott, I don’t find much “mindless pap” on NPR (which doesn’t even cover “celebrity” news…save death notices) or the New York Times. And as I demonstrated in links above, the “press” did NOT miss the news of Borlaug’s death, nor did it report it without respectful and accurate coverage of his accomplishments. So what exactly is the merit of your original point?
> I don’t find much “mindless pap” on NPR
I do. Rather commonly, in fact. Along with some seriously slanted coverage.
> or the New York Times
I don;t have a bird cage, so I don’t get that.
> the “press” did NOT miss the news of Borlaug’s death … what exactly is the merit of your original point?
The press seemed to think that Kennedys death was a few hundred times more newsworthy than Borlaug’s. I disagree. Borlaug was a great man. Kennedy was not. The death of Borlaug is a loss. The death of Kennedy is not.
Slanted coverage is in the mind of the beholder. As is, I suppose, “mindless pap.” As to not reading the Times, I’m sorry for your loss.
Unfortunately, the press definition of “newsworthy” is oftimes “apt to interest the most people,” or, “apt to sell the most papers/airtime” (save of course for the paper of record, with its credo, “all the news that’s fit to print.”). Good old capitalism in action. Can it be we have in common one thing other than interest in aerospace, i.e., that populist media are pitched to the lowest common intellectual denominator?
What media do you turn to for news, by the way?
>What media do you turn to for news, by the way?
The entirety of the Internet. Whatever news happens to be on the radio as I’m driving around (more often than not NPR). Whatever canle news station that *ain’t* running The Latest Missing Cute White Girl story.
OK, let me revise that. Is there a news organization (NPR, MSNBC, Fox, whatever) that you trust as a source of accurate and unbiased reportage? I mean, I’m assuming you do believe a free “press” to be a vital and necessary check and balance on gov’t activity? (not the sort of guy who would say to me, as once did a 19-year-old Marine, “what the hell is the news FOR? All it does is undermine the gov’t.”
Since you mentioned NPR as “more often than not” on your car radio, what is it about NPR that makes you listen, what with their (I presume you see) liberal bias?
> Is there a news organization (NPR, MSNBC, Fox, whatever) that you trust as a source of accurate and unbiased reportage?
No. Every news organization has some bias… Fox to the right, pretty much everyone else to the left. And, no, it’s not conspiratorial… journalists these days just tend to lean left, and it shows in their work.
> I’m assuming you do believe a free “press” to be a vital and necessary check and balance on gov’t activity?
In theory, yeah. Right now, not so much. Look at the coverage of Van Jones. How much coverage did he even *get* prior to him quitting? And post-quit, how much of the coverage has him quitting because he called Republicans “assholes,” as opposed to the real reason… he’s a communist, and was being called out as such? It’s sad when such obvious goofballs as Glenn Beck make better jounralists than the pros.
> what is it about NPR that makes you listen
It’s on. And NPR is oftentimes unintentionally hilarious.
FYI, Monday’s Times gave the obit 1st page (albeit below the fold), and over 1/2 page inside.
How much space did they devote to Kennedy?
Page upon page. Again, I think the “whoozat?” test applies at least as much, if not more than, that of his being a leftie. Reagan also got about 2 weeks wall-to-wall TV converage, if I recall. Had his passing coincided with Borlaug’s, I’d be flabbergasted were you to have devoted a blog entry to bitching (how many lives did Reagan save, exactly?).
> Again, I think the “whoozat?” test …
Well, then perhaps the media would be well advised to consider actually educating people. A staggering change in course for most of the media, I’ll admit.
> how many lives did Reagan save, exactly?
Not as many as Borlaug, probably. Borlaug is creditted with between a quarter billion and a billion. Reagan, on the other hand, was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union without firing a shot, thus preventing a major nuclear war. Call it anywhere from fifty to five hundred million lives saved, perhaps. Choose your percentage of that you’d care to credit Reagan.
Here’s the thing: Kennedy was mentioned specifically because he was an utter *scumbag* that is being lauded as a fricken’ *saint.*
Just for the record: what made him a “scumbag”? Don’t cite political actions or causes; one’s view of those is opinion (informed to some degree, dependent upon the individual, and not subject to being “proven” to an opponent’s satisfaction). To my knowledge, your charge would rest on:
1)alcoholism
2)womanizing
3)negligent homicide
Have I missed anything?
As to Reagan, my recollection — being at time of his election 20, already in possession of an extensive aerospace library, and well-read as one could be at the time on the history and effects of nuclear weapons — is that he played a dangerous game of one-upsmanship with the Soviets, ramping up the ante of tension and spending until their economy collapsed. Since we “won,” he’s praised. But an appointee who, on being Congressionally questioned, said he “hadn’t though much” about the issue of first tactical use in Europe, Reagan’s own belief that SLBM’s could be “recalled,” an SDI contest culminating in the Polyus launch (and yeah, I know it flew backward — hilarious), the administration’s backing of any blood-soaked tinpot whacko (Noreiga…the Contras…Bin Laden…Saddam) who’d claim anti-communist fealty leaves Ronnie an accidental saint at best in my book. Not to mention the fact that three memoirs by aides still loyal to him discuss his mental dysfunction.
Reagan? He’s the addled old man with whose nomination and re-election your party proved it valued party over Presidential competency. Yeah, he won the Cold War for us, I’ll damn sure give you that. But he also gave us Fox and the Christian Right, and established the precedent that liking a candidate is sufficient reason to vote for ’em (PLEASE tell me you found whitetrash Palin a disastrous prospect). Net gain? Remains to be seen.
> what made him a “scumbag”? Don’t cite political actions or causes; one’s view of those is opinion (informed to some degree, dependent upon the individual, and not subject to being “proven” to an opponent’s satisfaction). To my knowledge, your charge would rest on:
1)alcoholism
2)womanizing
3)negligent homicide
Is that not sufficient? But add in his career of political corruption (such as his “Let’s Screw Up The Immigration System To Aid The Democrats Act of 1964,” for starters), and you’re really generating a hell of a guy.
> is that he played a dangerous game of one-upsmanship with the Soviets, ramping up the ante of tension and spending until their economy collapsed. Since we “won,” he’s praised.
As well he should be. There had always only been two ways to end the cold war: hot war, or displomacy (i.e. capitulation). He came up with a third way that left America with its economy and its cities standing.
> Reagan? He’s the addled old man with whose nomination and re-election your party proved it valued party over Presidential competency.
Uh-huh. Following as he did *Carter,* that’s kind of an ironic claim.
>PLEASE tell me you found whitetrash Palin…
Boom. Right there. Racist/classist/elitist bullshit. Regardless of Palins pros and cons, it’s clear that the bulk of the opposition to her was that she did not come up through the Preferred Channels… either left-wing radical organizations or Ivy League Universities.
I’m a Southerner, born and bred. I know white trash when I see it. It has nothing to do with preferred channels or higher education, but everything to do with how you behave, believe, and conduct yourself. It’s a culture of self-righteous ignorance, loud-mouth arrogance, disdain for knowledge, and outright dishonesty. “Racist?” Nope; I’m white. “Classist”? Nope; my dad’s dad was a stonemason, my mom’s, a mechanic. “Elitist?” Damn straight. There are people of value, and the valueless. Palin’s the latter, before which fact (which I dare you to deny…i.e., tout her intellectual/emotional competence to be President) the source of the “bulk of her opposition” is irrelevant.
> There are people of value, and the valueless. Palin’s the latter, before which fact (which I dare you to deny…
Why should I go to the bother? You have made up your mind, and it is clearly unassailable.
Hey, I’m curious if you REALLY think she was Presidential timbre. We’re both inassailiable as to our beliefs, obviously. But what’s a little conversation?
> I’m curious if you REALLY think she was Presidential timbre.
Not really, no. When she’s asked a straightforward question, she’d yammer on for *far* longer than was needed; that really grated on me.
Of course, she would have been vastly preferable to Obama. Palin had a whopping two years of governor experience, with a few more of mayor; this seems pretty lean. But then, Obama had no relevant experience whatsoever… and, sadly, neither did McCain or Biden. “Legislator” is a piss-poor introduction into the world of executive leadership, while mayor and governor are exactly that.
I’ve yet to encounter a really good, solid reason why so many people hate Palin, apart from just some visceral, undefinable prejudice such as “white trash.” Which I consider to be every bit as valid a reason to oppose her as “nigger” would be for Obama.
>some visceral, undefinable prejudice such as “white trash.”
Well, I thought I defined it pretty well, and as for my definition being one of “prejudice,” I plead guilty to being prejudiced against such folks being in positions of power. Or are you saying the products of
…a culture of self-righteous ignorance, loud-mouth arrogance, disdain for knowledge, and outright dishonesty.
are fine with you in power, so long as their political views match yours?
>Or are you saying the products of a culture of self-righteous ignorance, loud-mouth arrogance, disdain for knowledge, and outright dishonesty are fine with you in power, so long as their political views match yours?
That’s a strawman arguement of your own. It is your *opinion* that Palin matches your little list. Others do not.
And because you’ll keep yapping on about it, no, I’m not “saying that.” But are *you* ok with it? If not, why do you harp on about Palin, who is now and almost certainly for all time a private-citizen-nobody, but do not seem to have the same issue with the Obama administration that certainly matches your list quite well?
Second question first: I *think* I’m honest in applying the same standards to “my guys” or the others. F’rinstance, I lost respect for Clinton when he:
a)did “don’t ask don’t tell,” a meaningless piece of BS with the sole merit of risking no political capital
b)fired and/or withdrew nomination of (the years pass…memory dims) the “too liberal” honest speakers-to-power who said 1)pot is harmless and 2)a good way to prevent teen pregnancy would be to teach petting in sex ed
and a few more things I’ve forgotten for the moment.
I haven’t noticed the current administration lying, or displaying a disdain for knowledge. Arrogance, maybe, but toward folks I think deserve it. Ignorance? Not sure. I’d be glad to hear your views. “Opinion,” I may deem them. But I *think* I’m open-minded. Year or two ago, guy told me “This Congressman says we DID find WMD! Why isn’t that being covered?” I looked; sure ’nuff, it wasn’t. I experienced doubt. WERE my chosen-as-trustworthy media biased?
Turns out no; at least, *I* don’t think gas shells left over from the Desert Storm are the “WMD we were looking for.” Point is, I gave the opponent’s argument consideration. As I do yours. Do you?
Why harp on Palin? Because IF Palin matches my “little list” (you find the list ITSELF trivial?), her bein’ the darlin’ of you guys means you guys put party before country. And her own words document the charges (in “my opinion”).
ANY party — or individual — who puts party before country is contemptable. In my “opinion,” the Republicans have done that in terms of 2 Presidencies, and one attempted vice-Presidency. Carter was ineffectual, Clinton an opportunist; Obama’s looking more and more ball-less in the face of strong opposition. But none of them rose to the level of crippling emotional or intellectual unfitness for the office. Nor did McCain, or Bush the First, or…well, I can’t give you Nixon; he was nuts.
Your party’s been putting form before substance since 1980, with extraordinary success. But a boob one agrees with is still a boob…and boobs don’t belong in the White House.
>Your party’s been putting form before substance since 1980…
My party? I have a party? When the hell did *THAT* happen?
Look, the closest I come to a party is the Libertarian Party, and they’re a bunch of clowns. Last I checked, Palin ain’t a Libertarian. So just who the hell are you talking about? Could it be you’re making unwarranted assumptions?
Fuck, yeah, sorry. Redact “your” and insert “The Republican.”
My gravest apologies. I do sometimes fail to distinguish among adversaries, which is both rude and stupid.
BTW, one day in 1984, I tried to buy a drink, only to be told the polls hadn’t closed yet. “Look at me,” I said to the bartender; “do you think I could GET drunk enough to vote Republican?”