Shortest term on the Supreme Court, and an unexpected controversy

August 5, 2007

Real history has enough mystery and controversy in it that one need not make up fictions.

I posed a question about who served the shortest term on the Supreme Court.

I had stumbled across the fact, and found it interesting: Edwin McMasters Stanton was a Supreme Court Associate Justice for one day in 1869.

Edwin M. Stanton, Lincoln's Sec. of War, Or was he? In the comments to my previous post, Ray from Anything Goes Discussions Edutechation (or Education Technology, more formally) pointed out that the official list of members from the Supreme Court Historical Association denies that Stanton took the oath of office, and so does not list him as a Member of the Court. What are the facts?

One source I have said Stanton took the oath of office on his deathbed, and died within hours. (Wikipedia agrees, but on such an issue, without reference, one should not trust it unconditionally.) The list from the Supreme Court specifically mentions the need to take the oath of office to be a Member, and leaves Stanton off the list, suggesting that he did not take the oath. What’s the truth in this matter? I do not know.

Read the rest of this entry »


Heather Burcham, 31 — campaigner for HPV vaccinations

August 3, 2007

Then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry introducing Heather Burcham to Texas reporters, in Austin, Texas, Feb. 19, 2007 (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry introducing Heather Burcham to Texas reporters, in Austin, Texas, Feb. 19, 2007 (AP Photo/LM Otero, via Houston Chronicle)

From The Dallas Morning News of July 25, 2007:

Heather Burcham, HPV vaccine advocate, who died July 21, 2007

Face of state’s HPV vaccine debate dies from cervical cancer

Burcham worked to keep girls from getting cancer that killed her

08:20 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Associated Press AUSTIN – The 31-year-old woman who put a human face on the state debate over whether to require that schoolgirls be vaccinated against the virus that causes cervical cancer has died from the disease.

* * * * *

Earlier in this year’s legislative session, Ms. Burcham spoke to reporters about the issue at Mr. Perry’s request. She also tried to testify before a House committee considering the vaccine ban, but the hearing ran so late that she was unable to stay at the Capitol.

In a news conference to announce that he would not veto the bill, Mr. Perry closed with a video of Ms. Burcham speaking from her hospice bed.

With oxygen tubes snaking out of her nose, she spoke of the pain she had endured for four years. She also mourned for the husband she’ll never meet and the children she’ll never raise. “If I could help one child, take this cancer away from one child, it would mean the world to me,” she said. “If they knew what I was going through, how incredibly painful that this was … then I feel like I’ve done my job as a human on this earth.”

The governor said that Ms. Burcham “was intent on making a difference. Her life, she said, would not be in vain.”

The strains of HPV that the vaccine prevents cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. But opponents said the vaccine was still unproven, and some objected to a state mandate involving a sexually transmitted virus. Mr. Perry’s order would have allowed parents to decline to have their daughters inoculate.

_______________

I post this notice more than a week late. A discussion at Pharyngula revealed that many people either had not learned from the Texas discussion, or had already forgotten the key points. Then Only Crook provided the link to a homeschooler’s rant against the vaccine (read, “in favor of our children getting cancer”). Dear Reader: Remember Heather Burcham, and remember the facts about HPV vaccines.

Heather Burcham waiting to testify to the Texas lege

A thumbnail version of Heather Burcham’s photo by Eric Schlegelman

Update September 23, 2011:  Lots of hits on this post today, probably because of the association of Rick Perry with this issue.   Welcome, new readers.  I regret that the larger version of the photograph of Heather Burcham, by Eric Schlegelman of the Dallas Morning News, is no longer available at their website, to which I linked.  If you need a photo to publish, I urge you to contact the paper or Mr. Schlegelman to get a copy.


Instapundit plays politics with Iraq policy

August 3, 2007

Glenn Reynolds wants to be able to blame Democrats regardless what happens in Iraq. Instapundit jumps on a stretched, absurd claim that Democrats will “be in trouble” in the 2008 election if the surge in Iraq works.

Santayana’s ghost laughs.

First, one needs to remember what happened to George Bush I, whose approval ratings were north of 80% at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. On February 28, 1991, George H. W. Bush looked to be a solid lock for winning the 1992 election campaign.

Bill Clinton defeated Bush handily just 22 months later. Among many other factors, with the nation not focused on war in the Middle East, the economy became a key issue. There are a few people deep in Democratic strongholds who are cynical enough to say the Iraq War could have been over by the end of 2003, but Karl Rove wanted a war to be sure Bush won in 2004, Rove having observed the lessons of 1992.

Read the rest of this entry »


Who was Millard Fillmore? No, really?

July 28, 2007

George Pendle’s hoax biography of Millard Fillmore sells okay — but Amazon lists 365,000 books selling better (July 28, 2007). That’s small solace to people who worry, as H. L. Mencken came too late to worry, about how hoaxes may spread. Mark Twain is reputed to have said that a lie can travel around the world twice before the truth can get its boots on.

So I was interested to find that somebody actually has a biography on Fillmore that ventures beyond the usual encyclopedia article. Big Mo’s Presidents Review featured Fillmore on July 15. According to the site, Big Mo is a journalist now stuck (or happy) in the corporate world. The biography is not so long that junior high (8th grade) U.S. history students will find it incredibly onerous, nor is it so short that it merely repeats the same old material.  It’s a good report.

 

Appointment of ____ to be ambassador to France; Fillmore and Daniel Webster signatures

The Big Mo report on Fillmore is good enough that other people are copying it wholesale (with attribution).

One gap:  Big Mo leaves out discussion of Fillmore’s boyhood, which is one area that students search on frequently, according to the statistics from this blog.  I think Fillmore’s early life, his change in careers after he threatened to kill the man he was indentured to if the fellow did not allow him to learn the trade, make some interesting discussion points about Fillmore’s character.  Minor quibbles.

On the plus side, he includes just about every image available on the internet, and cartoons about Fillmore, which are deucedly difficult to find in high resolution images.

Fillmore need not be a mystery.  Check it out.


Flag desecration arrest in North Carolina

July 28, 2007

The Volokh Conspiracy notes the arrest of an Asheville, North Carolina couple for improper flag display — they flew the U.S. flag upside down (a universal sign of distress), and with protest notes attached to it.

Details from the Asheville Citizen-Times.

The newspaper also notes that the flag desecration statute appears not to have been used since the Vietnam War era (anybody care to guess which political views got cited?) . A local fireworks sales stand in the area displayed U.S. flags in violation of the Flag Code near July 4, but while news abstracts appear to show the stand was cited for a violation of the sign code, there is no indication it was cited for the flag desecration code.

We need to amend the Flag Code, to authorize flag displays that have become popular recently, such as shirts that resemble the flag, flag decals in autos, flag bumper stickers, and other displays that technically violate the Flag Code — unless, of course, we want to try to criminalize innocent attempts to honor the flag. Flag desecration cases almost always have a political component, however, and such prosecutions should generally be suspect under the First Amendment — don’t you agree?

How much of the ire against the Kuhns in Asheville was prompted by their support of Ron Paul for president? (See the photo of their protest signs, and note the lawn sign in the background.) Mark and Deborah Kuhn show their flag protest signs, after arrest incident

If someone has the details of the fireworks stand case near Asheville, please send them along — was the stand in the same county as Mark and Deborah Kuhn?

UpdateThe Mountain Xpress story carries a slightly different tone, identifying the Kuhns as “activists,” and featuring interviews of eyewitnesses to the arrests.

Other improper flag displays, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »


Liberal evangelicals? Go see: Jim Wallis in Dallas

July 21, 2007

To counter the notion that “evangelical Christian” is synonymous with “conservative enough to make Attila the Hun blush,” the editor of Sojourners magazine speaks out in favor of helping the poor, protecting the environment, and generally not being so crabby about life. If you’re in the North Texas area next Tuesday, you can hear the message first hand.

Jim Wallis, publicity shot

Jim Wallis will speak in Dallas, at Wilshire Baptist Church, on July 24, at 7:00 p.m., part of the Faith and Freedom Speaker Series of the Texas Freedom Network. Wallis speaks forcefully for faithful people who do not share the crabby views of the religious right. This is a great opportunity for Dallas to hear a voice of goodwill from faith — some call it a prophetic voice. The TFN website says:

Rev. Wallis has boldly proclaimed that the monologue of the religious right in this country is over. In his evening lecture, he will explain how to renew the values of love, justice and community in Texas.

The Dallas organizing committee meets on July 12, 7:00 p.m., at Wilshire Baptist Church, 4316 Abrams Road, (see map in the sidebar). Please come!

Admission is free, but TFN asks people to click in advance to reserve seats, or call 512-322-0545 (TFN’s offices in Austin).

Pre-speech discussions among the organizers have suggested follow-up events to discuss Rev. Wallis’s ideas, and to fan the flames of freedom of faith in North Texas. In short, this will be a good networking event, too.

Who is Rev. Wallis?

Rev. Jim Wallis is a bestselling author, public theologian, preacher, speaker, activist, and international commentator on ethics and public life. His latest book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, was on The New York Times bestseller list for four months. He is president and executive director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, where he is editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine — whose print and electronic publication reaches more than 250,000 people — and also convenes a national network of churches, faith-based organizations, and individuals working to overcome poverty in America.

Check out the Sojourners website.

More details are available at the TFN website. You may reserve a seat at the Sojourners website, also.

Mark your calendars: July 24, Jim Wallis speaks (that’s NEXT TUESDAY). To get to Wilshire Baptist Church, from Central Expressway take Mockingbird Lane east to Abrams Road, turn left onto Abrams, and the church is about one block farther, on the right. It’s big, it has a lot of space and a good deal of parking.

Sojourners magazine, current issue

 


Carnivaling liberally

July 18, 2007

Carnival of the Liberals #43 is up at Stump Lane.


The scary truth about Powerline

July 16, 2007

Clearly somebody at Powerline proofs the copy — I imagine spelling errors that sneak into publication get corrected. But does anyone ever bother to check the boys’ work for reality?

Today Powerline appears to be complaining about Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s and America’s first Moslem congressman. After reciting the usual Powerline diatribes claiming Ellison is probably a Marxist, certainly out of touch with America, and probably responsible in an unsavory fashion for the designated hitter rule and the movie “Gigl,” the blog details Ellison’s sins (in the eyes of Powerline).

Do they need glasses? A refresher course in history? What’s scary is that Ellison’s criticisms of the Bush administration start sounding so rational — and for that, Powerline has no response.

Powerline warns us that Ellison spoke to a group of atheists in Edina, Minnesota, in towns that suggest disaster in the next film reel, copying from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

“You’ll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want,” Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress, said in a speech to more than 100 atheists at the Southdale Library in Edina. As Minnesota’s first black member of the U.S. House ends his first six months in office, Ellison did not disappoint a crowd that seemed energized the more pointed he made his opinions.

Oh, my! Ellison takes the Jeffersonian stand on the First Amendment. Are we swooning yet? What? Oh, yeah, well — Powerline prefers to think that parts of the Bill of Rights don’t exist, not in the rude company they keep, I guess.

The truly revelatory point there is that Edina has 100 atheists. If Powerline had any sense, they’d worry about how that might limit their market.

On impeaching Cheney, which the Minneapolis DFLer supports: “[It is] beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”

So, Powerline worries that Ellison thinks the administration should be answerable to the American people? That strikes me as a pretty good idea, actually. Bully for Ellison. Unsurprisingly, even Republicans say the same thing [see the last paragraph].

The Vice President should answer to and be held accountable to the citizens of the nation. That’s one of the key points of our Constitution — the founders wrote in formal occasions for the administration to make such presentations. Do the guys at Powerline know about the Constitution and its requirement for reports to Congress?

On calling the war in Iraq an “occupation”: “It’s not controversial to call it an occupation — it is an occupation.”

Ellison calls a shovel, a shovel. What was it Powerline wanted? What does Powerline call it?

While it is possible to hope for a better future, analysts and business consultants teach that people must recognize the reality of the situation they are in before making effective and executable plans to change things for the better in the future. Powerline has other plans in Iraq than success for America?

Here’s the money quote, the one that has caused a major kerfuffle of controversy today:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.”

Powerline comments:

In promoting the disgusting conspiracy myths of radical “truthers” and extremist Muslims, Ellison is simply working his latest hustle to the growing audience in the nut-ball box. It’s an audience that includes the Minneapolis atheists who fancy themselves too intelligent to believe in God.

Here’s the problem: The Bush administration did use the events of 9/11 as an the emergency event to get things done that they needed a contingency for. What was to become the PATRIOT Act, instituting a new system of spying on Americans, was already drafted by September 1, 2001; administration officials worried that it appeared too great an over-reach. Memos show that some officials suggested waiting for an event that might galvanize opinion in favor of such a move. That event occurred on September 11, and the PATRIOT Act was before Congress within a few days.

Powerline doesn’t deny that, of course. They can’t . All they can do is throw invective at Ellison, call him a Marxist, and suggest he’s out of touch.

Which, of course, is what the National Socialist Party did to their political rivals in Germany after February 27, 1933, the day after the Reichstag building burned. President Hindenberg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending many civil liberties in Germany.

Powerline says Ellison can’t accuse them of doing what they’re doing, after they call him “Marxist” for noting the historical parallels — just as the National Socialists called their enemies Marxists (several communists were arrested and tried for starting the fire; while most were acquitted, Marinus van der Lubbe was convicted and beheaded; a German court overturned his conviction in 1981).

If you don’t want to be accused of latter-day Reichstag political fixing, don’t do the crime. The rest of us may wish Ellison weren’t so scarily close with his historic comparisons. The solution is for the government to defend civil rights, and to stop calling people communists or worse for simply disagreeing about policy.

I think I hear Santayana’s ghost giggling a bit, between sighs. If our national future weren’t at stake, it would be really funny.


Waving the flag liberally

July 5, 2007

Carnival of the Liberals has a special July 4 edition, up at Zaius Nation. It’s the Flag Waving edition — go give it a look, especially since the carnival features a sideshow from this blog!


Happy birthday, Ben Davidian

July 3, 2007

Wherever you are, Ben, happy birthday.  Even though you’re a Republican.

Born on the day before we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Ben is not really older than the Declaration itself.


Fisking “Junk Science” and “100 things you should know about DDT”: A new project

June 27, 2007

Looking at the odd campaign against the reputation of Rachel Carson, conducted largely by a group of corporate-paid, political scalawags, one will eventually come across a site named JunkScience.com, which has as a motto, “All the junk that’s fit to debunk.”

One might be forgiven if one assumes that the site debunks junk science claims. But that does not appear to be it’s aim at all. On this page, for example, “100 things you should know about DDT,” the site perpetrates or perpetuates dozens of junk science claims against Rachel Carson, against public health, against government and against reason. The site promotes junk science, rather than debunking it!

For example, I had just read a chunk of history reminding me that our first Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, had been ordered by a federal court to review the pesticide certification for DDT, and had acted against DDT only after two different review panels recommended it be phased out, and states had already started bans of their own. At the time, in 1972, Ruckelshaus faced a heap of criticism for moving so slowly on the issue.

EPA history caption: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring led to banning DDT and other pesticides. [EPA iimage]

EPA history caption: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring led to banning DDT and other pesticides. [EPA iimage]

How is this action described at JunkScience.com?

You wouldn’t quite recognize the events — and I doubt you could verify other oddities the JunkScience.com site claims:

17. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man… DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man… The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner’s recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]

18. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus’ aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

[Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]

19. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner’s decision, Ruckelshaus refused to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that they were just “internal memos.” Scientists were therefore prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus’ “Opinion and Order on DDT.”

I propose to Fisk much of the list of 100 claims against Carson (which is really a list over 100 items now), in a serial, spasmodic fashion. I’ll post my findings here, making them generally available to internet searches for information on Rachel Carson and DDT. Below the fold, I’ll start, with these three specious claims listed above.

Read the rest of this entry »


Insanity spreads through Article II agencies

June 26, 2007

From the Chicago Tribune:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the president and vice president are not executive “agencies” and are therefore not covered under the executive order, but he stopped short of placing Cheney exclusively in the legislative branch. Snow He said the vice president has served “in an executive capacity delegated to him by the president” and noted that, constitutionally “there are no specified executive activities for the vice president,” and that his role “is a wonderful academic question.”

Chicago Tribune, “Emanuel seeks to cut funding for Cheney’s office, home,” June 26, 2007

Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows . . .


Rachel Carson’s honor defended

June 25, 2007

Bug Girl sleuthed around a bit, and found information from official sources that really demonstrates the critics of Rachel Carson are using Gillette Foamy to make us think “mad dog!”

DDT concentration in the food chain - USFWS

Chart from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) illustrates biomagnification, by which a minuscule dose of DDT to small plankton gets magnified a few million times by the time the top predators in the food chain get it.

So the evidence continues to pile up that Rachel Carson was simply a fine writer, a good scientist, and correct about DDT’s dangers.

Check out the Fish and Wildlife Service’s site, here; notice especially their structure of the site, to dispel the falsehoods.

FWS quotes Carson on DDT use:

In Audubon magazine she wrote, “We do not ask that all chemicals be abandoned. We ask moderation. We ask the use of other methods less harmful to our environment” (4). Countering claims that she was advocating a back-to-nature philosophy, she said, “We must have insect control. I do not favor turning nature over to insects. I favor the sparing, selective and intelligent use of chemicals. It is the indiscriminate, blanket spraying that I oppose” (5).

Evidence mounts that claims against Rachel Carson are sheer calumny. While the political motivations of this smear campaign are not clear, we don’t need to know for certain who is telling lies about a great American hero, or why. As Americans, as concerned citizens, as teachers and parents — as patriots — we only need to know that the claims against Rachel Carson are false.

And now it is our duty to call on Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn to stop the campaign against Carson. Coburn is the point man in the smear campaign right now: He has put a committee hold on the well-intentioned, justified bill to name a post office in her hometown after Rachel Carson. It is time for Tom Coburn to stand up and do the right thing for a great American. Sen. Coburn needs to lift his committee hold and allow committee action on this minor honor.

Other sources of note:

Bruce Watson, “Sounding the Alarm,” Smithsonian Magazine, September 2002. (Watson, Bruce. Sounding the alarm. Smithsonian, v. 33, Sept. 2002: 115-117.   AS30.S6)

“The Berry and the Poison,” about methyl bromide and its ban, Smithsonian Magazine, December 1997.


June 5, 1968: The day Bobby died

June 6, 2007

Jim Booth at Scholars and Rogues wrote about what the death of Bobby Kennedy meant to a 16-year old kid out to save the world from darkest North Carolina.

This is just the 39th anniversary of RFK’s death. Next year, 2008, will be the 40th, and will again feature an election in which the war-crippled lame duck president must be succeeded, and the early fields in both parties do not excite the incumbent party’s masses much.

But 1968 was a uniquely terrible year — we hope it was unique. One serious question is just how depressing will it be to hear the “40-years out” stories on the Pueblo crisis, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s death, the riots, RFK’s death, the convention riots, the money-and-morale-and-morality sapping war (Vietnam, not Iraq — we hope), etc., etc.

And so Mr. Booth’s close is a potent challenge: To rededicate ourselves to the hopes we felt in the first half of 1968, to see the implementation of those hopes now, two generations later — despite the cynicism that wells up whenever we see anyone touted as a great hope of needed change in the country’s direction, or whenever great hopes are dashed to pieces, as they have been in Iraq.

And every June 5th I stop for a few moments and remember how I believed in what America could be once – try to get some of that belief back – and, to use an old Boomer chestnut, “keep on keeping on.”

And I ask Bobby to forgive me – and my generation – for failing to pick up his torch….


Voting for cancer, against prevention

May 31, 2007

Yeah, it was a bit tacky of Merck to create a campaign to get government officials to require inoculations against human papilloma viruses that cause cancer — but, people!, we’re talking about preventing cancer here.

The Texas legislature voted for cancer, overturning Gov. Rick Perry’s ill-considered good idea to require vaccinations for school kids in Texas. In a state with top-notch anti-cancer research at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and UT’s Southwest Medical Center in Dallas, it was an odd, odd thing to witness.

The debates are skewed by a general distrust and dislike of big pharmaceutical companies, and by the religious right’s view that it’s better that a young mother die of cancer than she should get even the faintest idea that might in only the most perverse mind promote pre-marital sex. Still, we shouldn’t fall victim to voodoo science claims against vaccines.

Are my views, tempered by years of work promoting public health and fighting disease, clear enough for you?

Owlhaven wins popularity contests among mothers who read blogs, and it often is tender and touching — hey, I read it from time to time. But recently Mary, Owlhaven’s author, fell victim to a propaganda campaign from Judicial Watch, a far-right-wing bunch that campaigns against the U.S. justice system and generally makes a conservative-gratuitous-poke-in-the-butt out of itself. Judicial Watch claims to have some secrets from having filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with FDA to get Merck’s reports to FDA of adverse events known about Gardasil, Merck’s proprietary anti-cancer vaccine.

I responded, of course — but my response didn’t show on Owlhaven’s comments. Blackballed? Spam filtered due to the number or length of links? I can’t tell. Mary said she emptied the spam filter without checking. So, I repost my response, below the fold, for your benefit. Read the rest of this entry »