Join 3,561 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The anti-Borlaug
December 5, 2006 11:41 AM   Subscribe

Unsung Anti-Heroes: There are a few relatively unknown individuals who have saved more lives than anyone else on the planet. Norman Borlaug is credited with saving over a billion lives by starting the Green Revolution; he later won a Nobel Prize. Simon Petrov stopped the world from being annihilated in a nuclear war, and later won $1,000 from the San Francisco Bay Civic Association. Howard Florey, more than Alexander Fleming, made mass-produced penicillin possible, saving upwards of 50 million people, while Peter Safar invented CPR, and so on. But what about the opposite? One conservative site asks "who is the anti-Borlaug?" with a mix of more or less radical results. Leaving aside those who were directly responsible for mass deaths, who does the hive mind nominate as the anti-Borlaug?[more on some of of these heroes and anti-heroes inside]
posted by blahblahblah (73 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

 
The heroes:
Norman Borlaug: Borlaug responds to criticisms about his work and the environment. Some interesting connections with four other heroes of agriculture. A resolution in the House honoring him for saving more lives than any other human being. If you can't read, you can still learn about him in a rap.

Petrov had a nice MeFi post on him a few years back.

Some potential anti-heroes:
I posted about Thomas Midgley a couple months ago.
Ehrlich and other prophets of doom were covered in this great post.
posted by blahblahblah at 11:42 AM on December 5, 2006


Gavrilo Princip.
posted by drezdn at 11:48 AM on December 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Jesus.Did anyone mention Jesus?
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:51 AM on December 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Norman Borlaug is credited with saving over a billion lives by starting the Green Revolution.

So has the earth become a better place with a billion people more on it? Would it be even better if there were a billion more people living?

(Which is not to say that Borlaug didn't deserve the Nobel.)
posted by sour cream at 11:54 AM on December 5, 2006


Yoshiyuki Takasaki?
posted by felix betachat at 11:54 AM on December 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Mikhail Kalashnikov
posted by cal71 at 11:56 AM on December 5, 2006


You mean like Alfred Nobel?
posted by A189Nut at 11:57 AM on December 5, 2006


Rachel Carson certainly has to be considered a strong contender. That sweet little old lady is responsible for more premature deaths than Stalin.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:02 PM on December 5, 2006


I wish Petrov had a paypal account. I'd send him five bucks right now. Seriously. Is there any way to get in contact with this guy? I know it sounds trite but here is someone who conceivably could have saved millions and he's probably retired and dirt poor right now.
posted by mecran01 at 12:10 PM on December 5, 2006


"Anyone wishing to write a letter to Stanislav Petrov — or send a contribution to help him (he is experiencing health problems; see The Moscow News) — can do so through this address:

Stanislav Petrov
c/o Association of World Citizens
55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 224
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA"

Check out the website before donating, of course...
posted by blahblahblah at 12:17 PM on December 5, 2006


I know it sounds trite but here is someone who conceivably could have saved millions everyone and he's probably retired and dirt poor right now.

Great story about Petrov. Interesting that this incident occurred in September 2003, just three months after the premier of the movie WarGames, in which the climax involved a computer erroneously indicating a nuclear launch.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:22 PM on December 5, 2006


AQ Khan is kind of a fucker, but Kalashnikov is a pretty good nominee.

The Green Revolution isn't that cut-n-dry of a positive thing either, so don't be so quick canonizing Borlaug. It stepped up chemical inputs and corporate mass agriculture in 3rd world countries and increased the carrying capacity of the earth. Good thing? It's hard to argue with averting hunger, but there's always a counterpoint...
posted by mcstayinskool at 12:23 PM on December 5, 2006


"No, not while my greatest nemesis still provides our customers with free light, heat and energy. I call this enemy... the Sun. Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the Sun, I will do the next best thing... block it out!"
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 12:27 PM on December 5, 2006


Fritz Haber has the distinction of being both a Borlaug (for his work on nitrogen fertilizer) and an anti-Borlaug (for his work on chemical weapons).
posted by verstegan at 12:28 PM on December 5, 2006


Paul Ehrlich is not responsible for any deaths. Contraception doesn't kill anybody. I just rubbed one out: do I have the blood of thousands on my hands? Nope, just some cells that can swim.

Anyway, Oppenheimer? Well one day.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:30 PM on December 5, 2006


The Green Revolution isn't that cut-n-dry of a positive thing either, so don't be so quick canonizing Borlaug. It stepped up chemical inputs and corporate mass agriculture in 3rd world countries and increased the carrying capacity of the earth.

So the anti-Borlaug may be {dun dun duuuunnn} Borlaug himself! Bizarro Borlaug!
posted by pardonyou? at 12:34 PM on December 5, 2006


I just rubbed one out: do I have the blood of thousands on my hands?

More like millions you genocidal maniac.
posted by PenDevil at 12:35 PM on December 5, 2006


From "this conservative site":

Anti-population environmentalism is the religion of the Western secular-left.

Lol, Okay. It's amazing how warped the average "conservative"'s ideas about the average leftis actually are.
posted by delmoi at 12:37 PM on December 5, 2006


Pope John Paul II (may he burn in hell) is responsible for probably 30% of the worlds AIDS cases.
posted by Megafly at 12:37 PM on December 5, 2006


That site is full of sheer idiocy. "Darwin was a tremendoud biggot", etc.

Borlaug caused some enormous problems above and beyond over-population (see here), and the site identifies "Environmentalist religion" as death focused. Ironic, really, from the people who brought you Agent Orange, PCBs, "terminator gene" GMOs etc. He even promotes Round-up Ready GMOs in that interview, which are about the most expensive and counter-productive thing ever invented in agriculture, unless you're Monsanto.

And this site identifies fossil fuel burning as a "bogey man". Do these guys live in the real world? There isn't enough snark in the world to sum up how un-best-of-anything this shite is.
posted by imperium at 12:38 PM on December 5, 2006


Pope John Paul II (may he burn in hell) is responsible for probably 30% of the worlds AIDS cases.

What a fucking slut.
posted by felix betachat at 12:40 PM on December 5, 2006 [3 favorites]


Rachel Carson certainly has to be considered a strong contender. That sweet little old lady is responsible for more premature deaths than Stalin.
Whut?
posted by MrMoonPie at 12:40 PM on December 5, 2006


It is always a bit shocking to me that the inevitable response to someone like Norman Borlaug is to imply that saving a billion people is wrong, because of environmental concerns or corporate ownership or whatever.

Hybrid crops saved a billion people from starving. Borlaug basically stopped famines in the developing world. It is one thing to say that people should use birth control and stop having so many kids, quite another to say that the world would, in some way, be better off if all of those people just died. Contrarianism is great, but this seems a bit much.

Also, Rachel Carson was not responsible for the halting of mosquito-spraying with DDT.
posted by blahblahblah at 12:43 PM on December 5, 2006


Oh, and yes, the original site posing this challenge was crazy, and its opinions do not reflect that of blahblahblah or his affiliates, corporate masters, or dread overlords. But it was favorably linked-to by such mainstream conservative sites as Instapundit, so make your own judgements over how widely shared the views represented are.
posted by blahblahblah at 12:45 PM on December 5, 2006


Steven C. Den Beste writes "Rachel Carson certainly has to be considered a strong contender. That sweet little old lady is responsible for more premature deaths than Stalin."

You know, when I first heard this, it seemed like a fun little contrarian view, but I've been looking into documentation on the relationship between environmental concerns and reduced pesticide use in the third world, and as far as I can tell, it's pretty shitty. Hell, DDT is still being used in African malaria control efforts today. The "Carson causesdmalaria deaths" idea seems like a pernicious little conspiracy theory: connections being drawn between dots with little or no evidence.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:56 PM on December 5, 2006


I should have just seen the word "conservative" and not clicked. For some reason I was trying to be fair and balanced, or was telling myself that "conservative" doens't have to be synonymous with "complete and utter hateful bullshit"... turns out I should have just gone with first instincts.
posted by Artw at 1:02 PM on December 5, 2006


It is always a bit shocking to me that the inevitable response to someone like Norman Borlaug is to imply that saving a billion people is wrong, because of environmental concerns or corporate ownership or whatever.

I'm more concerned with how Norman Borlaug "ended famine" (which, of course, he didn't—famines are going on right now), by jeopardizing the survival of the human species and intensifying one of the worst mass extinctions in the history of this planet. Unless and until humans become beings of pure thought (and as Damasio's research showed, that's a contradiction), you can hardly brush off "environmental concerns" so easily, because we are part of that environment. If the environment dies, so do we. (See also Richard Manning's Against the Grain)
posted by jefgodesky at 1:07 PM on December 5, 2006


Marx and Lenin.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:09 PM on December 5, 2006


I dont have time to really put together an informed response, but is it fair to blame Kalishnakov or the AK-47 as such a source of evil? The Western world certainly was not lacking on ever increasingly sophisticated small arms weaponry ala the m-16, and thus why call out only one side?

It seems to me that perhaps the cheaply produced and very effective ak-47 might have worked to check increasing western imperialism into the affairs of 3rd world peoples. Its not like violence would not have happened without them.
posted by jlowen at 1:14 PM on December 5, 2006


SCDB gets his way with his noxious derail. Congrats, buddy!
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:15 PM on December 5, 2006


Cosmic irony:

Today, Petrov lives in a small village near Moscow in relative anonymity, surviving only on a tiny pension of $200 a month. He gave most of his reward money [$1000] to his grandchildren and spent the rest on a vacuum cleaner, an item he had always dreamed of, which then turned out to be faulty.

Technology will let you down every time.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:15 PM on December 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Well, Carson died in 1964, so it's hard to see how she could have been responsible for events that happened in the 1970s. The info-pollution.com link seems to say that DDT, in fact, was not banned but that seems a little hard to believe.

The environment seems to be one field where both sides spew unprecedented amounts of pseudo-scientific bullshit, and then turn around and attack the other side for their bullshit. On the one hand you have people like felix betachat in this thread bemoaning High Fructose Corn Syrup and on the other hand you have people denying that global warming exists. It's difficult to feel like you have an informed opinion.

A good example would be people claiming that producing Ethanol is a net negative endeavor. As far as I know, one recent study claimed this, and despite the dozens of studies that show otherwise.

I think (this is a theory) that people seem to enjoy believing 'contrary' things so that they can feel superior to everyone else, as though they are smarter and more privileged then the majority. It's a very annoying trait.
posted by delmoi at 1:17 PM on December 5, 2006


You. You are the anti-Borlaug. All of you.

There, I said it. You know everyone was thinking it.
posted by daq at 1:17 PM on December 5, 2006


I have to second blahblahblah's mention of Midgley, but then this is his thread.
posted by kingfisher, his musclebound cat at 1:22 PM on December 5, 2006


Rachel Carson certainly has to be considered a strong contender. That sweet little old lady is responsible for more premature deaths than Stalin.

Hey Steve, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it's about five years past time for a new party line.

DDT is already useless in many parts of the world becasue the mosquitoes there are resistant. In many places where spraying stopped it was human health concern and not environmental impact that drove the decision. Finally, the Stockholm Convention does permit the use of DDT for disease vector control. Prohibited is its agricultural use. What does the Malaria Foundation International say about this state of affairs?

"The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations over two years ago. For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before."

Hardly the holocaust.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:22 PM on December 5, 2006


I nominate ceiling cat — for watching you kill millions ... and doing nothing.
posted by rob511 at 1:23 PM on December 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


How about the Pilgrims or the Spanish Conquistadors? How many died from diseases carried over to the new world?
posted by spicynuts at 1:24 PM on December 5, 2006


[Petrov] spent the rest on a vacuum cleaner, an item he had always dreamed of, which then turned out to be faulty.

Somebody at least send him a Dyson or a Roomba.
posted by teg at 1:26 PM on December 5, 2006


jlowen - Pff... The AK-47 is the iPod of assault rifles.... in fact it's better than that, because it;s cheap as well as fashionable, so it's the iPod knock-off with FM tuner. The M16 is like a zune or that Sony thing with all the DRM or something.
posted by Artw at 1:30 PM on December 5, 2006


Dude, I thought it was totally clear that Gandalf is the anti-Borlaug.
posted by LionIndex at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2006 [4 favorites]


This is a ridiculous exercise. Many, many individuals contributed in some way to every one of these major impacts on mortality. From a slate of hundreds of influences anyone of any political persuasion can pick out their baddies and hold them ultimately responsible. Isolating the single person responsible in a distal sense is seldom as clear-cut as identifying ones proximally relevant, like Hitler or Stalin.

But even that isn't as easy as it seems. You want to nominate Stalin? Fine. But then perhaps you really should say Lenin, who paved the way for Stalin (and others).

Of course, maybe its not Lenin but Marx, who inspired Lenin, that we should hold ultimately responsible.

Of course, by that logic, we ought to push it back to Hegel, who inspired the dialectical thinking that Marx was so taken with.

But hey, why stop there? Why not hold Gutenberg responsible, because without the printing press its entirely possible that Hegel's (and Marx's and Lenin's) views wouldn't have been disseminated widely, so that others would take them up with such terrible consequences.

Etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
posted by googly at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2006


Peter Safar invented CPR.

This is only partially true. Safar promoted mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as a method of getting people to breathe again, but he did not invent the chest compressions that are also used in CPR. The two who discovered that you could use chest compressions to restart a persons heart were the electrical engineer, William Kouwenhoeven, and his lab assistant, G. Guy Knickerbocker. This American Heritage article provides a good summary. I used to be a co-worker of Guy Knickerbocker, so I thought I'd set the record straight.
posted by jonp72 at 1:50 PM on December 5, 2006


The info-pollution.com link seems to say that DDT, in fact, was not banned but that seems a little hard to believe.

It was banned as an herbicide, but not completely banned as a pesticide. In addition, the development of new strains of insects who were DDT-resistant made DDT less than effective for its intended purpose, regardless of what evidence is or isn't there about its toxicity.
posted by jonp72 at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2006


But it was favorably linked-to by such mainstream conservative sites as Instapundit

Riiiiiiight. Here's an idea: how about not giving a bunch of wingnut assholes the respect of even playing their stupid little game?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2006


Without a doubt, the #1 anti-hero on my list would be Thomas Midgley. In fact, when I read the post, I went scrambling to find blahblahblah's post from October (redundant link since he reposted it himself up top). That Bill Bryson book everyone was talking about a while back gives a succinct account of the gigantic ecological reaming he gave our planet, too.
posted by ambulance blues at 2:05 PM on December 5, 2006


Well, fair enough, I'll play, even though it is shameless wingnuttery.

Karl Benz, for inventing the internal combustion engine that's about to allow us to warm this planet beyond habitable limits.

Louis Fieser, for napalm.

Robert Oppenheimer, for the bomb.
posted by imperium at 2:25 PM on December 5, 2006


Alec Rawls criticizes Ehrlich as the "anti-Borlaug", not for killing people, but for discouraging people from having children. That's pretty ... strange, considering that Borlaug himself is also concerned about population growth:
... Borlaug has long warned of the dangers of population growth. "In my Nobel lecture," Borlaug says, "I suggested we had until the year 2000 to tame the population monster, and then food shortages would take us under. Now I believe we have a little longer. ..."
Personally, I'd nominate the inventor of gunpowder. (I'm tempted to say Gatling, but presumably if he hadn't invented the machine gun, someone else would have.)
posted by russilwvong at 2:49 PM on December 5, 2006


I've always contended that Dr. Ogino deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, because millions wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for him.
posted by Skeptic at 2:53 PM on December 5, 2006


"I think (this is a theory) that people seem to enjoy believing 'contrary' things so that they can feel superior to everyone else, as though they are smarter and more privileged then the majority. It's a very annoying trait."

I read a paper on that (maybe here) which linked it to the American desire to be a "sharp," rather than a mark. It's actually been studied by social scientists, though I don't have time to search out the documentation.
posted by klangklangston at 2:55 PM on December 5, 2006


jefgodesky,
What are you talking about? The famines that occur now are very isolated and are not due to lack of food, but political situations. Africa could be easily fed if the infrastructure were there, as Borlaug points out in his interview. Burlaugh gave us the means to make enough food, he didn't garuntee that the food would magically get to everyone. That's a job that we still need to work on. And what mass extinctions did his achievements intensify? How has he jeopardized the survival of the human species? Do you mean because he allowed more of us to exist? You're right, humans are part of the environment, but the environment is not some fixed, static thing. The whole point of his work is that we can get a lot more out of the same resources than we thought we could. Do you have any actual figures to back up anything you've said? What is your rationale?
posted by Sangermaine at 2:59 PM on December 5, 2006


Why, because anyone can invent machine guns, but gunpowder is something that only one guy would ever think of?
posted by jacalata at 3:03 PM on December 5, 2006


klangklangston,
What about non-American contrarians? I think delmoi has it right. People like to take contrary positions because it sets them apart from the "masses". I think it's related to pedantism in many ways, proving your superiority by correcting others.
posted by Sangermaine at 3:24 PM on December 5, 2006


My vote goes to TBL. I've now wasted half my life thanks to that a-hole.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:47 PM on December 5, 2006


imperium +1

The Green Revolution was a good idea at the time but has had its problems:

1. Pesticides. 15-20,000 deaths from Bhopal alone, cancer clusters in midwestern farming communities... Oh wait, am I about to compile statistics that prove poisons cause death?
2. High costs & debt. Hybrid seeds have to be purchased every year from the manufacturer (not harvested from the plant for free). The Green Revolution requires machinery, plus fuel costs, plus repairs. Before the Green Revolution, seeds were bred in place and more suited to local soils and conditions -- post-GR seeds require high water inputs, high fertilizer inputs, and often herbicides & pesticides. Until the whole global equity thing gets worked out, the Green Revolution leaves farmers indebted and possibly politically controlled.
3. Right now, third world famines are caused by food distribution problems, converting cropland to profit-making export crops (coffee) rather than food crops, and political unrest, not actual food shortages.

Borlaug sounds like a really amazing person. But that doesn't mean that we have to supporting everything about the Green Revolution. Its basic assumptions are out-of-date, and ideas like perennial polycultures, dryland farming and locally-adapted plants, seed saving, etc. are in.
posted by salvia at 3:53 PM on December 5, 2006


pedantry
posted by Wolof at 3:53 PM on December 5, 2006


Wolof writes "pedantry"

Beautiful.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:07 PM on December 5, 2006


Heh, righto Wolof. Meny spallink errs in my last few posts. But anyway, salvia, I don't think anyone here is saying that the Green Revolution is perfect, just that equally it's not some thing of great evil. It was a tremendous solution to a tremendous problem that existed at the time, and it worked well for that. Now we need to work on solving the issues it raised (like pesticides), and working on the issues that were already there (it's not like the Green Revolution invented debt, corporate greed, poverty, political problems, etc).
posted by Sangermaine at 4:07 PM on December 5, 2006


jacalata: Why, because anyone can invent machine guns--

Right. It's the alternate-universe test: in an alternate universe without Norman Borlaug, a lot of people--hundreds of millions, maybe more--would have died. In an alternate universe without Richard Gatling, someone else would have developed an equivalent gun.

--but gunpowder is something that only one guy would ever think of?

Correct. The fact that it appears to have spread from China to Europe, rather than being independently invented, suggests that it wasn't an obvious invention.
posted by russilwvong at 4:23 PM on December 5, 2006


Cool, okay, sorry. I guess I let the original article bug me a bit too much.
posted by salvia at 4:28 PM on December 5, 2006


salvia writes Borlaug sounds like a really amazing person. But that doesn't mean that we have to supporting everything about the Green Revolution. Its basic assumptions are out-of-date, and ideas like perennial polycultures, dryland farming and locally-adapted plants, seed saving, etc. are in.

Quoted for being true. I have a close relative who, in the 1970's, had the shocking temerity to question some of Borlaug's assumptions (he's a retired agricultural scientist). He saw dirt-poor third-world farmers who previously could raise enough food for their family through "old" methods now absolutely beholden to government agencies giving them proper seed, fertilizers, and chemicals. I won't slag on Borlaug himself, who sounds like a bright guy, but if you think the disapperance of family farms into agri-business, or if you simply wonder why your tomatoes from the store no longer taste like tomatoes, you can thank Borlaug in no small part.

My relative, btw, has a thriving post-career career now, because all of those "silly, outdated" methods of farming, primarily ogranic farming (no outside chemical input), are making lots of people money, precisely because they make good agricultural sense. And the stuff tastes better in all cases.
posted by bardic at 4:45 PM on December 5, 2006


*think the disappearance is a bad thing, obviously
posted by bardic at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2006


"What about non-American contrarians? I think delmoi has it right. People like to take contrary positions because it sets them apart from the "masses". I think it's related to pedantism in many ways, proving your superiority by correcting others."

The paper posited that there was evidence to suggest that this level of contrarianism and belief in contrarian theories was tied up with national notions of individualism and exceptionalism. While foreign contrarians may exist and may contribute to political policy, they were not the focus of the paper that I read.
(Examples that could be cited include the peculiar resistance to human causes of climate change and the prevalence of gambling and lotteries, though I can't now say that I'm not misremembering the paper, so I'm trying to stay away from arguing their thesis with their examples).
posted by klangklangston at 4:47 PM on December 5, 2006


I think to answer this, we need to know if the intent behind the creation was to harm. Hiram Maxim invented the modern machine gun, but he did so in an effort to make war so frightening that no one would fight it. Mikhail Kalashnikov invented a weapon so iconic that is represented on a flag, however his motivation was to provide his country-men a weapon to defend themselves against another attack like those from the Germans in World War 2.

For my money, I'll go with Gabriel J. Raines. The inventor of the modern land mine. A device that is capable of harming people long after the conflict that precipitated it use has passed.
posted by quin at 6:03 PM on December 5, 2006


Steven C. Den Beste, any comment?
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:35 PM on December 5, 2006


Just to play (heh) devil's advocate, how about Abraham?
posted by Saydur at 7:36 PM on December 5, 2006


klangklangston,
I guess I jumped the gun. That sounds like a very interesting paper. I've never thought of things that way. Do you remember who it's by/what it's called?
posted by Sangermaine at 8:23 PM on December 5, 2006


No, but I'm nearly positive I found it through Metafilter. The problem is that I think it was linked in a comment, not in an FPP, which makes searching harder. Luckily, there are only 50000 posts to skim through...
posted by klangklangston at 8:31 PM on December 5, 2006


Regarding Petrov, I posit this question: Is a man who had the power to incite billions of deaths, but did not, a hero? Or, is he simply an ineffective part of a despicable system set up to ensure billions of deaths?

What is a man with a gun to your head who does not shoot you?
posted by tehloki at 10:13 PM on December 5, 2006


Verstegan's mention of Fritz Haber reminds me of Dr. Schlichter von Koenigswald trying to reach the break-even point in Cat's Cradle.
posted by lukemeister at 4:23 AM on December 6, 2006


I suggest Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir (1822 - 1900) who produced a gas-fired internal combustion engine closely similar in appearance to a horizontal double-acting steam beam engine, with cylinders, pistons, connecting rods, and flywheel in which the gas essentially took the place of the steam. This was the first internal combustion engine to be produced in numbers.

The numbers of deaths due to vehicle accidents compiled upon the combustion engines devastation to the environment definitely includes him on this list.
posted by hubs at 8:16 AM on December 6, 2006


Mohamad, Amraham, Jesus, whatever, toss all of the relgious ones out and put them under a blanket of relgion which is most likely one of the top reasons for killing.

My vote would go to Christopher Columbus, though I have some doubts that he actually inteded that the Native Americans would undergo what they did.

Really the farther back you go in History, I think you'll end up finding somebody who is responsible for a whole chain of events that they did not intend. For example, how long would Stalin have lasted without the West fighting Hitler first?, Hitler may have been just a painter if it weren't for the death of the Archduke. The Archduke wouldn't have been as important if it weren't for Otto Von Bismark, etc, etc.
posted by Numenorian at 8:37 AM on December 6, 2006


Mecran01, now you can put your money where your mouth is:

Following blah3's suggestion, I emailed the Association of World Citizens, and got this response:


********,

Yes, I have forwarded contributions to Stanislav for two years, now amounting to around $10,000. I will meet with Petrov in February and give him more donations.

If you want to give through our organization, just make out the check to Association of World Citiizen and write Petrov donation.

I'll also send information about the movie being made on
his life that will be released in 2007.

Douglas Mattern
President, Association of World Citizens


Just email info at worldcitizens dot org

Seems like a great way to pay my clean conscience tax this year.
posted by Dataphage at 1:16 PM on December 6, 2006


"Lol, Okay. It's amazing how warped the average "conservative"'s ideas about the average leftis actually are."

Average leftists on the other hand, have an uncanny knack for nailing just what constitutes an average conservative.
posted by jaysus chris at 9:53 PM on December 6, 2006


« Older Make Life Better with a Sailboat-in-a-Closet....  |  Dude, there are some fucked up... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments