Sunday, June 11, 2006

These pests have developed a resistance…

In anticipation of a close vote on Monday on London's proposed pesticide bylaw, the anti-pesticide activist lobby is again reminding council again that while prohibition is not really suggested with evidence or reason, it is more convenient to treat the issue as a simple one of perception. Actually, two perceptions — the perception of pesticides in the first place, and more importantly, since they are the ones deciding on every Londoner's behalf, the egotistical need-driven perception of the councillors that they are governing by consent. So when you've got a pet regulatory agenda, it's always a good idea to massage the perception with yet another opinion poll, because that's all that really matters… at least until the coup. Joe Belanger, London's senior agitprop journalist, reports in today's London Free Press:

Preliminary results of the study by University of Western Ontario researchers come as council prepares to vote on a proposed bylaw banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. The study, based on a 2005 survey of London homeowners, shows 68-per-cent support for a pesticide ban — but only if it includes exemptions for "severe infestations." Support plummets to less than 40 per cent for a ban without an infestation exemption.
The study's author, associate professor of geography Jamie Baxter, told an accommodating Belanger that
he decided to release survey results to help Monday's debate.
Well, being a social science academic, he helps out in the only way he can… Whether social scientists ever had a grand and humane purpose in the first place I tend to doubt, but the remission of their livelihoods through taxes has naturally devolved their purpose into a self-serving authoritarian disposition to tell the taxpayers what they think. And so it is that only a social science academic could indulge the veneration of Big Brother with as self-reflexive an interpretation of one of the results as this:
The survey found 77 per cent of the Londoners polled consider pesticides a potential health risk.

"It tells me there are people out there who want to be told not to use pesticides and they just need that extra push (of a bylaw.)"
"We love you so that you may tell us what to do so that we may love you." Ass…

According to the Free Press, the study surveyed between 256 and 268 London residents, varying over the submission of three questions. Whether the results are considered statistically significant in a city of over 340,000 people, I could not say, but common sense would suggest that those who consented to a survey on the subject would be more likely to have a particular interest in a resolution of a concern, one way or the other, and less likely to be satisfied with the status quo, building in an inherent bias in the results. But more to the point, the survey submits the propositions only to residents generally, instead of to the homeowners specifically whose property is the target of the proposed injunctions and who, incidentally, pay the municipal property taxes. Would a survey of the parties who have a genuine stake in the outcome yield these results? It is rather more a certainty than a doubt that it would not. But the survey's inclusion in the Free Press will generally survive much scrutiny and serve its propaganda purposes for the length of time the matter has until it comes to a vote… for which, for that matter, the added "help" will probably prove to have been unnecessary. But it's a nice thought, Jamie… thanks for coming out, and keep up the grant applications!

On the subject, Bob Howard, council candidate for ward 6, has this to say:
When crime, road conditions and the services to business’ and residential properties declining, can we actually believe that the majority of Londoners are for a ban against pesticides? I think not. But if action is not taking by the silent majority soon we may face a council controlled by this vocal minority with their agenda being pushed through at the cost of taxpayers, employers and employees alike. Business will suffer, taxpayers will suffer and as such London as a whole will suffer unless we can make sure that a system of checks and balances is in effect for all Londoners alike.
Mr. Howard's website has been added to the sidebar of the London Fog. Candidates for council, board of control, and mayor may have their websites added here by emailing us.


Honey Pot said...

Bobby, hate to break it to you but the use of cosmetic pesticides is a big issue here in London. As people educate themselves, and can see the link between death/disablities/carcinogenic chemicals, they tend to give their head a shake.

Bike paths are important, and will save money to the taxpayer in the long run. We have our police force, who apparently have way too much time on their hands, sitting in trees ready to pounce on wayward citizens who dare ride on the empty sidewalks of London. What if one of those officers falls out of the tree and hurts themselves? That is going to cost the taxpayer much. It is better to let them go back to sitting in their cars eating doughnuts, and drinking timmies, where they will be kept out of harms way.

Anonymous said...

Honey - Carcinogenic chemicals - gas, motor oil, pool chemicals (chlorine, stabilisers, algaecides), home cleaners, hand soap (antibacterial) bleach, etc., etc.,
Are we to ban them all because a few folks MIGHT have issues with them? Should we pack in our cars?, our pools?, stop cleaning our house, dishes or hands?
Londoners don't even get the issue. I'm sure you're all for the willy-nilly banning of every thing that MAY cause harm.
I'm going to call up a hundred London residents and ask them if they want to be opportunity to control insect infestations on their property, I'm quite certain I would get a majority of yes. This is precisely why polls are all about the question and not at all about the answer.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention also that the City of London workers (London Hydro in particular) uses varsol to kill weeds in road and sidewalk cracks - I'm sure that's a benign chemical, much better that a small squirt of round-up, I'm sure it's broken down by the sun like 24D, or can be neutralised like other chemicals. No?

gm said...

Hey honey should we ban this too. You guys sure are keen on taking control of all behaviour.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain. contributes to the "greenhouse effect." may cause severe burns. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Anonymous said...

gm - I love it! Let's get a few folks together, make up some signs and see if we can get the government to ban rain! Honey will join in I'm sure, in fact there seems to be lots of zealots in London with more time than brains.

Honey Pot said...

You two chewed way too many lead paint chips off the windowsills when you were babies. If you know something is causing bad health effects, why would you not do something to try and stop it? The ban is a go, get over it.

I have faith in mankind to come up with safe alternatives.

I just know you two are advocates for asbestos insulation.

Get with the program.Open your eyes real wide, read a book or two, and do some researh. Do your own scientific expierment. Drink a bottle of round up and keep a diary of the effects on your body. If you live to tell about it, could be a best seller.

Anonymous said...

Honey said, "Get with the program. Open your eyes real wide read a book or two, and do some research. Do your own scientific experiment. Drink a bottle of round up and keep a diary of the effects on your body. If you live to tell about it, could be a best seller." and I repeat "zealots in London with more time than brains".

The government wants to tell me what to do on MY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY; I will not get over it.
I am sick and tired of the governments ever increasing control over its citizens. I'll make it simple for you honey - a ban does nothing for the environment - however it tromps on my freedom. I think you and the like minded you's had best go live in some other socialist country where you can turn your life over to the government and leave people who still believe in freedom and rights in Canada alone.

gm said...

I think most people can understand that a knife is a dangerous item if used improperly. So is the power of the state but you seem to endorse that with little care about freedom, rights and the proper use of force.

Honey Pot said...

John Matsui, spokesperson for the lawn-care industry, said he wasn't surprised by the vote.

"It's clear Imagine London is in control of the majority of city council and they're to be congratulated," Matsui said.

"That's what London should get used to." -lfp

Well Johnnie, someone has to be in control. Someone has to be at the helm, so to speak. This flaying around with no clear vision from our city council is ludicrous. Not a decision maker amongst the lot of them.

I must say I never laughed so hard in my life as I did when I read that statement by Johnnie with the hair, in the freeps this morning.

Well done Imagine London!

Anonymous said...

This is making me ill.

Why are you so anxious to give up your rights Honey? Can you not take care of yourself? Can you not make decisions for yourself? Do you need someone to tell you what is right and wrong, like a small child? Do you need the government to take your hand and lead you through this world?

City Council, Imagine London and the Mayor of London seem to think the citizens of London are morons who cannot make their own decisions, and they will continue to eat away at our basic rights until we live in a whole different city. Is that what you want?

Honey Pot said...

Annoy, I can't help it. Just call me human. When I see something that is detrimental to the well being of children, it pisses me off. I don't like the thought that some stupid bastard is more worried about his front lawn than the health of children. Until science comes forward and tells me pesticides are good for you, I am going to back the horse that takes the bull by the horns and has them banned.

I know children rank right up there beside cats and dogs on the government/big business agenda. I have encountered too many children and adults who have suffered the effects of government sanctioned pesticides. I know from experience, I am an agent orange mutant.

Anonymous said...

Honey - This bylaw will be BAD for MY SON (one of those children that you claim to care about). He has severe allergies that can often lead to attacks and a couple hospital days. After using 24D in our yard, eliminating every weed, and cutting our grass super short, we can allow him into the yard to play. The chemicals have NEVER affected his asthma. If we go to the local park we have 15 min. max. before we have to head for home and by the time we get there he is often wheezing. So now you have encountered someone who will be directly affected health-wise by the banning of pesticides. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the elimination of toxic weeds has greatly improved his health. Can you find me someone, anyone whose health has been directly and detrimentally affected by the chemical 24D?

I am not part of the government (other than a Canadian citizen), I am not, nor do I have any friends or family in the lawn care industry, I do not work for any big business that uses or sells any chemicals at all. I have a piece of farmland I rent for our vegetable garden (that is exempt anyway).

I would rather take the risk of having City workers fine me for using 24D then having my son die of an asthma attack.
I didn't bring this up before simply because I am against making any law for the good of the few, to the detriment of the many.
Without absolute proof, we as a society are limiting ourselves, without the industry to produce pesticides and distribute pesticides where are we to get our protection against West Nile, the Emerald Ash Borer etc… When the next toxic insect or virus enters into our society maybe you think we should just let it run its course and kill off a few million people.

I am always against the government taking over our lives. I am always against the idea of banning anything that has not been PROVEN unsafe. I am always for the reduction of government and it's departments. I am always for the responsibility of self and freedom to make decisions for my self and my family.

Honey Pot said...

I will admit, I am not an epidemiologist. I have read lots on the subject though. I want you to go back in time, say thirty years ago. Compare the stats on children with asthma/autism then, to now. I think you are in for a shocker. Did you not think that your child may suffer from asthma because of the toxin's, you no doubt, are chock full of? We all are full of them, some of us more than others. I remember when they wanted to burn pcb's in London. Had one guy stand up at the meeting who said they are not harmful. He said he worked for the railroad for thirty years or so, and used to wash his hands in it. I knew the man, and I didn't want to point out to him that he had two grandchildren that were diagnosed with stomach cancer. He couldn't or wouldn't, make the link between dioxin's being stored in fatty cells to be passed down from generation to generation. If people can't see an immediate result of something, they tend to want to believe it is not harmful.

Anonymous said...

OK Honey, let's head back say 50 years where infant mortality was higher, where when we lived to the ripe age of 60 on average, and that was considered old. Did it ever occur to you that the world is a safer place? We live longer due to medical advances, less physical hardship, better nutrition. At least two of these factors are directly linked to the use of pesticides.
Do you think the person in South America cares if twenty-five years from now they die of cancer, when they could die from malaria tomorrow? That is what the banning of DDT's has done for the world.
Hmmm.... birds with soft egg shells vs. people dying.
There are people all over the world that rely on North American companies to supply them with the pesticides they need to stay alive.
Looking at historical evidence I would have to say pesticides have been a positive thing.

Honey Pot said...

Don't recall any epidemics of malaria in Canada. Global warming is going to have to be put on the fast track for that to happen methinks.

Annoy, we need those birds, they help keep the insect infestations down to an acceptable level. Best those baby birds are hatched in hard shells. Perhaps the lawn care companies could tether a gaggle of them together to peck the bugs out of people's lawns. They could shit all over the lawns, bird shit makes could fertilizer.

Annoy, we are not a third world country. The use of cosmetic pesticides is for ornamentation only. It is stupid and unnecessary. It is over, wring out your crying towel, put on your big boy panties and move on.

Anonymous said...

Your claim to care so much for other people yet really only care about yourself.

We all know there is no malaria in Canada, my point is that in other countries there are people dying because North America decided to ban a useful pesticide.

The red winged blackbird is a beautiful bird that lives in ditches and along roadways in North America. It was on the endangered list because of soft shelled eggs. Now and for the last several years this has become a well populated bird (I see them everywhere), however there are no red-winged blackbirds in South America where there are people dying of malaria. So I say again birds vs. people? Those kids you claim to care about are dying off every day because people like you care more about birds.

Honey Pot said...

Like you care about people in a third world country.

White boy dreaming bout' a tax cut, and caring about people starving to death, just don't add up.Hahahahahaha.

People are dying all over the world, from many causes because the Western world doesn't care, and suffers from an acute case of racism.

I more than likely would agree to using pesticides in a third world country to combat malaria, but I wouldn't feel good about it. Knowing what I know about the genetic defects the stuff can cause, it would make me sick to think about it. If it were up to me I would be looking at other ways to combat it. Up to me, I would be forking out some money to research alternatives to spraying DDT.

Anonymous said...

That is precisely the point Honey -who is going to shell out the big bucks to research the alternatives? Why the pesticide industries of course. Just like with the drug industry a percentage of profit has to be pumped into research, research for better ways to do things. Of course if we remove all the revenue these companies have than sooner or later a "pest" will arrive and Canadians will not be able to combat it.

As for DDT, where are all the genetic defects caused by DDT's? I have watched the footage of the American government mass spraying the public with DDT's; how many babies were born with genetic defects due to this. I can tell you that they have not had any proven. DDT's were bad for birds. Birds are the reason they banned DDT's, not human genetic defects.

Lastly I am not a "White boy dreaming bout' a tax cut" I am female the last time I checked between my legs and am not strictly white. My mother is half-European (white) half-native Canadian, my father half black half Latino. So I see a mix of all worlds. I married an Asian man so our children are 1/2 Asian, 1/8 white, 1/8 Native Canadian, 1/8 black, 1/8 Latino. Does that help with your automatic racial labelling? Why do you think that opinions are slotted into racial or gender packages?

Honey Pot said...

Annoy, no doubt the pesticide producing companies fund research that is favorable to their toxins. You think they are going to pay someone money to tell them they are killing people? Just doesn't work that way.

Nah, you are white. Female you might be, but definately caucasian. I can tell by your whining... and that, "I am sick of looking after the rest of the world" attitude. White people often have that attitude. They are the gatekeepers because they have been in a position of power for so long.

Honey Pot said...

The genetic defects? Let's see...we know area's in New Brunswick that were sprayed with Agent Orange, purple and white had a higher rate of children born with spina bifida, cleft pallets, club feet, deformed, missing or multiple organs, mental retardation. Missing bones or bone deformity. When you have a whole group of children born in the same year suffering from these ailments, you know dam well something is going on.

Perhaps because the lawn care companies are not using such a potent dose of DDT, we only are seeing an increase of socially accepted handicapps in children, such as asthma, and varying degrees of autism.

Mike said...

Puzzled by the Howling Void's Moebius strip racism-anti-racism-racism? Consult my post here.

Anonymous said...

Honey - You don't know me - you have no right to make comments on my race. I get that enough from actual people face-to-face, and it has nothing to do with property rights.
You brought up the subject of Agent Orange, I have done very little research on the subject so will concede that Agent Orange is a dangerous chemical. Are we still using it?
I use the example of DDT's because I personally know people in third world countries who would happily spray the chemical around there homes. There families have suffered for generations from maleria, children die every day, and 50 is considered old. They don't care if they get cancer when they are 80 if means they will not die tommorow.

Honey Pot said...

I will make comments on your race if I feel like it. That is my right. Race is a great big mother of a factor when people are formulating their opinions. I find your opinions sterotypical of a privileged caucasian. I am white also, I am well aware of the white privilege.

Annoy, what do you think lawn care pesticide spray contains? marshmellows?

Anonymous said...

Look honey - to be completely honest I was raised in a predominatly white neighbourhood, I very rarly consider my or my husbands race other than to defend my kids to some rather nasty folk. I don't presume someone elses opinions are based on race. I have first hand knowlege of many races, our families, how they interact and thier opinions. I find that people vary greatly in every way.

Honey, where do you think that stuff in the pesticide spray cans comes from? Outer Space?

Honey Pot said...

Oh yeah people's views are based much on what race they are a part of. Say for instance you were native, you would have a totally different perspective on property rights, than if you were white. See they see it as their property being borrowed or stolen, and the white race see as lawful government expropriation. A government that consists of mostly the white race I might add.

I am well aware of what is in the pesticide spray cans Annoy, it is you who seems to be a tad confused. Here is a little advice for you, I suggest you don't use raid as a deodorant, or a cologne.

MapMaster said...

How simple life must be for you, Honey Pot, you don't have to figure out anything about anything again as long as pigment exists.

Honey Pot said...

I got it pretty well figured out Map. It is finding the solution to the problem that is difficult.

Anonymous said...

Actually Honey - I would take you as the worst type of racist by making presumptions based on race without any proof, and then pretending not to be. I much prefer the rednecks who are honest about their racial ideas. You are far too nieve to have figured out anything but the propeganda set in front of you by your friends.

Honey Pot said...

There is tons of proof that racism is alive and thriving. We are all subject too it, and are taught it. I was raised lace curtain Irish catlick. I was led to believe that protestants ate their children. Through observations of my own, I realized this couldn't be true, because there were tons of protestant children that didn't have bite marks on them.

MapMaster said...

Honey Pot, I wonder how this guy would fit into your neat little self-absorbed taxonomy.

Mike said...


Oh yeah people's views are based much on what race they are a part of.


From Human Action, Von Mises, Chapter 3, Section 2:

Racial polylogism differs from Marxian polylogism only in so far as it ascribes to each race a peculiar logical structure of mind and maintains that all members of a definite race, no matter what their class affiliation may be, are endowed with this peculiar logical structure... It is superfluous to ask the racists to explain what kind of logic is peculiar to people who are not of pure racial stock. There are much more serious objections to be raised.

Neither the Marxians nor the racists nor the supporters of any other brand of polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes, races, or nations. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the non-Aryans, or the logic of the Germans from the logic of the French or the British. In the eyes of the Marxians the Ricardian theory of comparative cost is spurious because Ricardo was a bourgeois. The German racists condemn the same theory because Ricardo was a Jew, and the German nationalists because he was an Englishman. Some German professors advanced all these three arguments together against the validity of Ricardo's teachings. However, it is not enough to reject a theory wholesale by unmasking the background of its author. What is wanted is first to expound a system of logic different from that applied by the criticized author. Then it would be necessary to examine the contested theory point by point and to show where in its reasoning inferences are made which­--although correct from the point of view of its author's logic­­--are invalid from the point of view of the proletarian, Aryan, or German logic. And finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the author's vicious inferences by the correct inferences of the critic's own logic must lead to. As everybody knows, this never has been and never can be attempted by anybody.

Then there is the fact that there is disagreement concerning essential problems among people belonging to the same class, race, or nation. Unfortunately there are, say the Nazis, Germans who do not think in a correct german way...

A consistent supporter of polylogism would have to maintain that ideas are correct because their author is a member of the right class, nation, or race. But consistency is not one of their virtues... Hitler was even frank enough to admit that the only method available for him to sift the true Germans from the mongrels and the aliens was to enunciate a genuinely German program and to see who were ready to support it. A dark-haired man whose bodily features by no means fitted the prototype of the fair-haired Aryan master race, arrogated to himself the gift of discovering the only doctrine adequate to the German mind and of expelling from the ranks of the Germans all those who did not accept this doctrine whatever their bodily characteristics might be. No further proof is needed of the insincerity of the whole doctrine.

Honey Pot said...

What rules the mind is what you surround yourself with?? Nope...That might bold some truth when you are an adult, but you don't have much control over that as a child. A child's environment is what sits the pace and pattern for life. If you were taught for example that you were superior to everyone around you, or inferior, it would be a very hard thing to shake. Best to teach a child they are equal, and of value if you want a thinking adult.

Anonymous said...

Really honey? Is that what your teaching your non existent kids? You only seemed too willing to shove me into a square box, insist that it is round, and that it is where I belong.
You don't believe in equality unless it is your brand of equality. You think everyone who doesn't agree with you is either very stupid or some rich white guy who only will care about himself. You have the very worst type of racism and don't even see it. Trust me when I say that anybody who has been exposed to racism does.

Honey Pot said...

There really is only one brand of equality. The one that makes everyone equal.

I do get pissed off at the gatekeepers and their arrogance.Who are the gatekeepers Annoy? Did you know that no law has ever been made unless it has affected some rich person. We would still be allowed to drink and drive if some rich white person hadn't of been killed, by some poor drunk. Do you know that women would still be allowed to be raped if it hadn't of happened to some rich white guy's daughter. Yeah I get pissed off at the gatekeepers.

Anonymous said...

Honey - You have a very narrow view of life. I will never be able to convince you that it is wrong remove our rights one at a time all in the name of "good for the people" until we become a socialist country. Just as you'll never convince me to willfully give up another right or freedom that comes with living in Canada.
People who immigrated from socialist countries are horrified with the way Canada is headed.