It’s the logical fallacy of trying to talk your opponent into defending a Soviet dictator as if that had anything to do with what the hell you were initially talking about. The skillful opponent will realize this and point out he’s under no obligation to defend the thoughts and actions of someone he’s always been disgusted with and would never advocate.

Borlaug dies roughly the same time as Teddy Kennedy.

Teddy Kennedy was a worthless piece of cowardly shit who never contributed one useful thing to humanity, and gets adoring constant media coverage fit for Jesus, all because he mouthed stupid socialist platitudes in the right way and at the right times, and all with extreme self serving intent.

Norman Borlaug was a unique contributor to humanity, as pointed out he literally fed billions through his hard work, and he gets what, DK? WTF does he get in the way of eulogies in the MSM? A paltry paragraph or two buried in the pages of two leftwing rags. And evidently less than that nationwide.

Now why, you silly child, would I want to contrast Borlaug with the left? Well, gosh. Maybe it is because Borlaug wanted to help people by feeding them, and without strings attached. Now in contrast, the left wants to control people, so they use the strings attached illusion of aid, most of us identify as vote buying.

Quite the vivid contrast, isn’t it, sonny?

Your youth and ignorance shows on your protest, my child.

An ancient Chinese proverb is “You do what the man who gives you your rice bowl tells you to do.”

Control the food source and you control the people.

And, yes, sonny, the left has shown its utter ruthlessness in using food as a weapon, something virtually unheard of in a conservative society.

4 + million condemned by Josef Stalin, in the 1930s, to starve to death in the Ukraine. Untold millions starved to death in China. Socialism is a tyranny, and in a tyranny those who are the favored eat first, if any thing is left maybe the commoners get something. The use of food as a weapon was not and is not unique to Josef Stalin.

*cough* *gasp* *wheeze*

I agree with you about that. Unfortunately many Libertarians and Conservatives think the opposite. So when a Liberal says “people should consider just have three children instead of ten because your three children will now all reach adulthood as opposed to the olden days where you had to have ten children to have three adults” others hear “you should have ten children but pick your three favourite and take the other seven out and shoot them or else the government will take seven at random and shoot them”.

It’s sad that he doesn’t get the coverage that Michael Jackson did – but that’s more a function of the type of news that private consumers are demanding than it is of anything else. Borlaug should be a celebrity. It’s not “the media’s” fault that he’s not.

The leftists wanted to decide when people could eat. OK, that makes a whole lot more sense now, vidyohs.

I’m not sure why you’d contrast Borlaug with the left. Maybe with some environmentalist fringe. But he used science to lift millions out of poverty. Sounds like a liberal (and conservative, and centrist) hero to me.

I don’t know how these people live with themselves. They would never think they were the ones that should have died.

After all, before the mass starvation in the U.S.S.R., Russia was the “granary of Europe”. Before the modern starvation in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia was the “breadbasket of Africa”. Shouldn’t Africa have been a food exporter ages ago if were populated with decent countries and entrepreneurial people even without the contribution Norman Borlaug?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPosEhkx5vI

Hat Tip: “Watts Up With That” blog