Oh, we certainly wouldn’t want to forget that.

Link

This symbol represents the oppression of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. It played an important role in the genocide of the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the continuing atrocities in Tibet, Burma and Sudan. Throughout its 50 year history it has been used as a weapon solely against democracies in support of authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. It’s body count is second only to the swastika yet is viewed as a symbol of peace by millions.

….

One can rightfully argue that had the US under presidents Kennedy and Johnson not supported South Vietnam, it’s possible that the North Vietnamese would not have supported the Khmer Rouge initial rise to power. The nation as a whole bears responsibility with the North Vietnamese for the deaths of Vietnamese, Americans, Laotians and Cambodians during the war during the Vietnam conflict.

But opponents of the Vietnam War must shoulder some responsibility for the events that occurred after getting what they wanted: a US government out of Vietnam, legally barred from involvement in Southeast Asia, that created a power vacuum that the Khmer Rouge was only happy to fill. The result? 1.5-3.0 million dead Cambodians, and hundreds of thousands of dead South Vietnamese. President Lyndon Johnson has been called a war criminal by some on the Left. How about Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, John Kerry and other leading anti-war figures? Don’t they bear some responsibility for the genocide that happened after the US left Indochina in 1975?

Ideas are powerful and they do and will get people killed. But what they don’t do is automatically save people or make their lives better. That requires action and a specific kind of action.

Another interesting aspect of Borlaug’s work is that as far as I am aware, it was done without large government grants.

Socialism operates on the principle that if the government has a powerful ability to interfere with business, that businessmen and those who depend upon business for their wealth will pour money into the coffers of politicians so as to prevent that government power being used against them, the businessmen and investors.

The idea of individual businessmen utilizing their profits for the greater good on their own initiative is not an idea the Left accepts. It is too foreign to their world of Haliburtons and Fannie Maes and Enrons. The fact that George Soros, leading funder of Leftist causes, has a lot of stock in Haliburton now, while Fannie Mae was the direct result of business colluding with government power, only reinforces the Leftist cry for more government power over business practices. The fact that the same people who caused such corruption disasters in the first place are also leading the charge for more government power over businesses, is, of course, par for the course.

It would be a mighty inconvenience for politicians if private industries could solve problems without needing to give millions in bribes to those same politicians. Very inconvenient.

Another interesting aspect of Borlaug’s work is that as far as I am aware, it was done without large government grants.

Below is a quote from a very interesting read that is tangentially related to Borlaug and his research.

We should add that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his famous farewell address as president – the “industrial-military complex” speech – also warned of the intersection between science and government. This is what he said:

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Thus, Borlaug being a man of science and user of technology to relieve suffering has little relevance to them. What he accomplished did not prove them right and change the fabric of American society to a more rational one where their values – and many of them individually – achieve dominance.

Some of the noblest – and loneliest – people in the world are those environmentalists who spend their effort in actually trying to clean, improve, and protect the environment with concrete action.

This man sits among a pantheon of heros – next to Mother Theresa.

Let me add my thanks for mentioning Norman Borlaug. He has long been one of my heroes. Contrast Borlaug’s many, real and considerable accomplishments against elitist luddites like Paul Erlich, mentioned above or Obama’s newly appointed science adviser and long time Erlich pal, John Holdren. Or contrast Borlaug’s accomplishments to such self-aggrandizing windbags as Al Gore.

One contrast which really strikes me is when you read about a predicted malthusian catastrophie like Erlich wrote about in his book The Population Bomb where he predicted that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death” and that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.
This was pessimistic on all levels. In predicting such a mass famine, in failing to think that there might be enough technical progress to allow another solution, in thinking that people were incapable of overcoming the problem, in its elitist dislike of people in general and suggesting that a radical population reduction was the only way to avoid starvation. Population reduction for thee, not he ofcourse.

Borlaug’s main objective was to improve agriculture so as to be able to feed more people. He went about it with a humility and selflessness that seems as if from another age. Borlaug’s solution was optimistic and positive. It was also democratic, not elitist, but most of all, it was real.

No wonder the environmentalists, and the left either don’t like him or dismiss him. As Ymarsakar says, he definitely turns their world upside down. We need more Borlaugs.

Ehrlich gets what he wants, a platform.

Never forget that ideas have consequences.

Of course, you could argue that I shouldn’t complain, since it’s a win-win. Ehrlich gets what he wants, a platform. Borlaug gets what he wants, people not starving.

Mr. Borlaug helped create the World Food Prize, “recognizing — without regard to race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs — the achievements of individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or availability of food in the world.”

Borlaug also was featured in a Penn and Teller BS program on genetically modified foods. He appears at around 1:53 to speak of what he does and how these foods can help feed people around the world. P&T say he helped save 1 billion people with his agricultural improvements in the world.

Perhaps that is why some leftists hate Borlaug. They believe the world is too populated now. Of course I don’t see too many of them volunteering to off themselves for the sake of the planet.

Three cheers to such a man.