Imagine a conservative congressperson doing something this unhinged and not getting raked over the coals in the press (Wall Street Journal link requires subscription):

Tuesday was Africa Malaria Day, and Michigan Representative John Conyers marked the event by inviting something called the Pesticide Action Network to Capitol Hill to denounce DDT as an unsafe malaria intervention. What was he thinking?

Malaria, which is spread through mosquito bites, kills about a million people annually, mostly children and pregnant women in Africa. We're not sure where the House Judiciary Chairman got his medical expertise, but he won't reduce that death toll by promoting disinformation about DDT and malaria prevention. And at taxpayers' expense, no less.

PAN and a shrinking band of other activist know-nothings insist that employing DDT against malaria is "especially dangerous for developing infants and children," but there is no scientific basis to the claim. Zip.

Back in December I wrote an item entitled Darfur Warriors of the Boston Globe, describing the newspaper's call for muscular action to end ethnic strife in that region of Africa. Earlier this month, the Globe was back on the case, as I described in The Darfur Double Standard: Globe Calls for Intervention.

Darfur today is not Iraq under Saddam. But there are sufficient parallels to render this morning's Boston Globe editorial deeply ironic. While the Globe has condemned the coalition intervention in Iraq, it clamors for aggressive international action in Darfur.

Let's have a look at the Globe's Light on the Darfur Darkness and compare and contrast the situation there with pre-war Iraq.
Darfur editorial: "The areas in which humanitarian aid workers can operate are shrinking, and aid workers are often targeted by government-backed militias."

Saddam's Iraq: Between the embargo and the corruption-riddled oil-for-food program, many spoke of a humanitarian disaster in the country.

On the one hand, I have to give the Washington Post credit for frontpaging today's story on longtime Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe's campaign of police thuggery against opposition leaders.

Yet when I looked through the article, I found no mention that Mugabe is a socialist or leftist, nor was he labeled a dictator.

In fact, the only dictator reference came in a graph that noted that the latest high-profile victim of Mugabe's violence, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, has himself been accused by political rivals of having "dictatorial tendencies."

[more after the drop]