Save The Eagles?

Remember how it was oh so important to save eagles? It was so important that the mosquito killing chemical DDT was banned, and as a result, millions upon millions of human beings died from mosquito-borne illnesses. Nearly 30 years later, it would seem that eagles aren't that important after all:

A controversial wind farm proposed near Red Wing plans to ask for federal permission to legally kill eagles, making it one of the first in the nation to participate in a new federal strategy aimed at managing the often-lethal conflict between birds and turbine blades.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials say they urged the developers of AWA Goodhue Wind to seek the new permit because the deaths of an unknown number of eagles and endangered golden eagles will be inevitable once the 50-turbine project is up and running.

The process for such "incidental take" permits was devised in 2009 as a compromise between the demand for clean energy from the growing number of wind farms and the rising concern over the estimated hundreds of thousands of birds and bats that they kill every year.

So, is it wrong to kill eagles? From an enviro-whacko perspective, it depends on who does the killing.

You see, it's different when a lefty kills an eagle. Remember when DDT was banned because it was supposedly (never proven) making the egg shells of eagles too thin and brittle. As a result, literally 10s of MILLIONS of human beings died from mosquito borne illnesses-- supposedly to save eagles. But it's OK to kill a few eagles if it means that these monuments to stupidity and "green religion" are left intact.

Meanwhile, it was acceptable to kill tens of millions of human beings by banning DDT--to "save" eagles.

Ain't it grand how liberal illogic works?