The Richard Nixon Death List grows…
Author Page for davenoon
The invention of Doritos coincides roughly with the mainstreaming of weed in American culture. Today, the nation says goodbye to the man who helped nourished stoners for a half century.
Charles Elmer Doolin, the creator of Cheetos, apparently died in 1959, so bloggers will have to mourn retroactively.
At the risk of being insufficiently devotional today, I will note that this is totally bizarre.
Two aluminum shields were fashioned out metal that was salvaged from remnants of the fallen towers, and then dispatched to the Red Planet in 2003 on Spirit and Opportunity Rovers, according to a NASA press release. The shields, which are each embellished with an American flag, were designed to protect cables on the rovers’ rock abrasion tools, also known as RATs. . . .
The Mars Exploration Rover Spirit was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., on June 10, 2003, followed by Opportunity’s launch on July 7. In 2004, [Stephen] Gorevan told a New York Times reporter that the memorial had not been publicized at the time because it was intended to be a “quiet tribute.”
“Enough time has passed. We want the families to know,” he said.
And now, I suppose, they do.
I see that Ed Morrissey is relying today on a strain of Althousian hyper-literalism* to prove that Barack Obama is an idiot or something because he described Abraham Lincoln as the “founder” of the Republican Party during last night’s speech.
Er, not quite. Lincoln wasn’t even the GOP’s first Presidential nominee; the first Republican nominee was John C. Fremont in 1856. As the Independence Hall Association recalls, the actual founders of the Republican Party are “Northern leaders such as Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase and Charles Sumner.” Lincoln joined early, as did other anti-slavery Whigs whose party was unraveling at the time, and Lincoln came in second for the 1856 vice-presidential nomination, but he was not a founder of the party.
True enough, so far as it goes, though my Republican friends on Facebook are going to be awfully disappointed to discover that they never received their invitations to all those Greeley Day dinners. The fact of the matter is that Republicans have — until, apparently, last night — always recognized Lincoln as the party’s fons et origo, whether or not he was the party’s first choice of nominees in 1856 (and whether or not he could ever have been nominated by his own party after, say, 1876). Republicans, for better or worse, haven’t given a shit about John Fremont or Salmon Chase since the days they were buried, and they surely haven’t claimed Charles Sumner as one of their own since the Republican-dominated Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which Sumner co-authored and which every single contemporary Republican voter would regard as the spittle of madmen.
Moreover, Lincoln historians like Donald Fehrenbacher and Harold Holzer (among others) have also described Lincoln as the party’s “founder,” a title they bestow on him because it actually makes a substantial amount of sense. Since the formation of the Republican party was driven by a body of ideas about the status of the Kansas-Nebraska territories and not (as with the original two-party system) with the personalities of genuine “founding” figures like Hamilton or Jefferson, there’s no real point to scraping about for analogous characters that Obama may have overlooked. During the 1850s, the Republican organism was little more than an idiosyncratic coalition of state and regional parties united by an evolving recognition that the national Democratic party was little more than a vehicle for the interests of the Slave Power. Lincoln was a central actor in the emergence of Illinois’ Republican party, and to the degree that Illinois was a central actor in the larger national drama over the question of slavery in the territories, it’s no stretch to describe him as a founder. Moreover, if we consider Lincoln’s role as an intellectual figure within the party, there’s simply nothing — not even Seward’s “Irrepressible Conflict” speech — that rivals Lincoln’s debates with Douglas or his February 1860 speech at Cooper Union.
So was Obama thinking about any of this? Who the fuck knows? Probably not. But his description of Lincoln as the party’s founder is magnitudes less absurd than Ed Morrissey’s reaction to it.
* e.g., If one describes a political leader as “loudly trumpeting” an idea, one must also prove that the idea was broadcast using an actual trumpet.
The real story behind the new Institute of Medicine report on vaccine-related adverse events isn’t — as many stories have highlighted — that evidence fails once again to support the MMR-autism link. Everyone with a grain of sense has understood this for years; the IOM itself published one of the definitive reports on vaccines and autism seven years ago, and the weight of evidence against the association has only grown heavier since then.
Rather, the most significant note to be made is that recent additions to the vaccination panic spectrum — including concerns that vaccines can cause asthma, Type I diabetes, and Bell’s palsy — are equally lacking in epidemiological and mechanistic support. Where the evidence does favor a causal link between vaccines and specific adversities, the events themselves are generally rare and transient. The more serious risks are borne by children with compromised immune systems or with underlying metabolic disorders (like Dravet syndrome); however, in these cases, it’s worth pointing out that the adverse events in question are almost always milder versions of the very complications that would result from exposure to the actual diseases. And with vaccination rates on a depressingly downward course in states like California — where “personal belief” exemptions allow parents to eschew entirely reasonable public health measures — vulnerable populations will be at much greater risk from the circulation of measles and pertussis than from the MMR and DTaP vaccines. But since Americans are generally inept at assessing risk, the case for tightening those exemptions is not likely to bear many results until we see some pretty massive body counts. Hooray!
Predictably, Orac has the best rundown on the report.
Among his numerous claims to fame, I suppose Henry was the closest thing to a proper mascot we’ve ever had at LGM. Back in the day, when I could be counted on to write about much of anything at all, I mentioned him quite frequently, usually with gratuitous pictures of the poor guy straddling one of my daughter’s stuffed animals. Indeed, if you were to peruse our modest CafePress collection, for example, you could buy merchandise commemorating Henry’s efforts to impose himself on Cookie Monster.
Unfortunately for everyone close to him, though, Henry’s toy-humping urges were drawn from the same anxious darkness that brought him to splatter the world with urine. As a younger cat, he would from time to time enhance a pile of dirty laundry or an ill-fated pair of shoes with his own particular scent. In graduate school, I once spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why my girlfriend’s car smelled like cat piss — until I realized that the problem was not the car but rather the Cedar Rapids Kernels hat I was wearing at the time. The hat survived after a thorough dry cleaning; the relationship, not so much. Read more…
• At 7:56 p.m. Sunday, a 36-year-old man reported the theft of a Sarah Palin cut-out from the Alaska Shirt Company in the 400 block of Franklin Street. The cut-out has an estimated value of $1,400.
No word on whether Rich Lowry is back in town this week.
No one will believe me, of course, but just this morning I was thinking, “I wonder what’s new in the world of cocaine.”
Cocaine cut with the veterinary drug levamisole could be the culprit in a flurry of flesh-eating disease in New York and Los Angeles.
The drug, used to deworm cattle, pigs and sheep, can rot the skin off noses, ears and cheeks. And over 80 percent of the country’s coke supply contains it. . . .
[Dr. Noah] Craft is one of several doctors across the country who have linked the rotting skin to tainted coke. The gruesome wounds surface days after a hit because of an immune reaction that attacks the blood vessels supplying the skin. Without blood, the skin starves and suffocates.
For a period in the 1990s, levamisole was hailed as an effective component in adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer; then a few studies came out showing that the drug significantly worsened the prognosis for patients (and caused potentially life-threatening side effects like white cell crashes), and it was eliminated from the cocktails. Now it’s used almost exclusively on animals. Its use as a cutting agent in cocaine is apparently a recent (and evolving) phenomenon, as this fascinating 2010 piece from The Stranger describes in great detail — among other things, levamisole is virtually undetectable, adds significant bulk to crack (while surviving the purification process), and may accelerate cocaine’s potency. And if you scan back through Google news since the mid-1990s, you can track the growing estimates of the presence of levamisole in the American coke supply, from around 30 percent in 2005 to current estimates of 80 percent or more.
And to think that some people insist that our War on Drugs doesn’t produce measurable results.
So the usual suspects are evidently pissing themselves over the latest, wildly overstated claim that a reduction in sunspot activity will initiate a “mini ice age” and make Al Gore fatter and weepier. Never mind that one of the participants in the relevant study has rejected the wingnut gloss it’s received over the past 24 hours; the larger problem is that AGW doubters insist on citing a hypothesis that has been reluctantly abandoned by one of its original proponents and (for lack of corroborating evidence) ignored or dismissed by nearly everyone else.
Put briefly, climate change “skeptics” often propose an argument based in large part on a small group of studies from the 1990s that subsequent research failed to corroborate. Between 1991 and 1997, two Danish scientists — Eigil Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark — developed a notion that shifts in the intensity of sunspot activity correlate positively with upward or downward shifts in global temperatures. The mechanism for this relationship, they suggested, was a causal link between sunspots and cloud cover. More sunspots, more clouds; more clouds, warmer temperatures. They graphed the data that seemed to validate their hypothesis.
It all sounded plausible, except for the part about the bullshit:
[T]he two key graphs [from Friis-Christensen and Svensmark’s work] are based on flawed data. There is no correlation between global warming and solar activity, and no correlation between cloud cover and cosmic rays, the critics say.
The flaws were first identified by Peter Laut, a Danish scientist who was once science adviser to the Danish Energy Agency. Laut, now retired, demonstrated in a study first aired in 2000 and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2003 that both graphs contained serious errors. When these flaws were corrected, the apparent correlations between global warming and solar activity, and cosmic rays and cloud cover, disappeared.
. . . Six leading experts, including one Nobel laureate, agreed with Laut’s analysis that the graphs of Friis-Christensen and Svensmark showing apparent correlations between global warming, sunspots and cosmic rays are deeply flawed.
Friis-Christensen now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear “divergence” between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.
As anyone familiar with the research would tell you, the relationship between sunspot activity and global temperatures is poorly understood. Aside from the the dubious mechanism proposed by Svensmark and others, there does seem to be a measurable (though tiny) correlation between sunspots and overall solar luminosity. But as Joe Romm points out, even if we were looking forward to a “grand minimum” phase of solar activity — a questionable prediction in the first place — the decrease in luminosity would perhaps amount to a reduction of .1 to .3 degrees Celsius. (That’s a decimal point in there, by the way.)
Lacking a stronger mechanism to link solar variation with climate change, it would seem the deniers have only magic and miracles at their disposal. Which I guess explains a lot after all.
Given that our only apparent alternatives are to consider Anthony Weiner’s dick or Sarah Palin’s application of the Barnum Effect to the history of American Revolution, allow me to remind everyone that today also happens to be the International Day of Slayer. Bludgeon yourselves accordingly.
Via TPM, I see that Mike Huckabee is marketing a home remedy for whatever historical literacy your kids might be acquiring in school. As I understand it, Huckabee has marshaled the power of 1990s computer animation software to reveal truths about the American past that only a quintet of impressionable, time-traveling teenagers — one of whom is evidently named “Barley” — could discover. The trailers suggest the series won’t be quite as inspiring as the Drunk History ouevre, but the no-risk, 30-day introductory offer comes with a pair of snappy blue binoculars and something called a “shoulder sack,” so there’s that to consider.
But before I squander my completely undeserved share of LGM’s advertising revenue on a trial membership, I need to know if the videos possess any scholarly rigor. Well, consider me reassured. To guarantee that the videos meet Huckabee’s exacting standard of historical accuracy, multiple levels of quality control have been set into place. Here’s how:
First, our lead researcher goes through various primary and secondary sources, including printed and online resources to determine the most important events and themes that will be included in each episode. Those events and themes are then woven into a script in which the animated characters experience the history first-hand. After its completion, the script is reviewed by at least two members of Learn Our History’s Council of Masters, who suggest changes to make the film as historically accurate as possible.
So it’s peer-reviewed! By a Council of Masters, no less!
Unfortunately, this particular bukkake party includes the University of Dayton’s Larry Schweikart, whom you may remember from such books as Bill Clinton’s Penis Killed the Indians and Four Dozen Strawmen in Search of an Argument. Schweikart has developed a comfortable niche for himself as a Fox News-approved historian, and my guess is that Huckabee’s new series is will turn out to be more or less a badly-animated version of Schweikart’s triumphalist narrative of US history. It would be difficult to survey adequately the depths of hackery this fellow has mined in the last decade. I’ve tried — see the last two links — but you can judge for yourself here, in the introduction to Schweikart’s book about warfare and why the United States, like Charlie Sheen, is always winning. (Surprise! The hippies help!) Schweikart has also written a new book about applying the wisdom of the Founders to contemporary political issues. In the introduction, he warns us that “[w]hen [the food Nazis] come for your Ho Hos, they won’t stop until they dictate every morsel that goes into your mouth.” Yeah, well, something tells me the kids from the Time Travel Academy will have something to say about that.
The rest of the Council is considerably less interesting, although it does include a fellow who received his most recent degree from Wayland
Smithers Baptist University and now teaches at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee. I can’t speculate precisely what historical contributions he might offer to the series, but I expect he’ll be available for Huckabee’s next project, “Fucking Magnets: How Do They Work?”