This symbol is instantly recognizable, the swastika. It was the symbol of Nazi Germany and is today used by radical Neo-Nazi groups around the world promoting ultranationalism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia and antisemitism.

But the symbol long predates Nazi Germany. The earliest known example was found in Mezine, Ukraine dated about 10,000 BC. It was found on pottery in the Devetashka cave, Bulgaria, dated 6,000 BC. It was in common use by the Indus Valley Civilization in India 3300–1300 BC.[1]

The meaning of the symbol was very different. In the Zoroastrian religion it was a symbol of the revolving sun, infinity, or continuing creation. In Jainism the four arms of the swastika symbolize the four places where a soul could be reborn in the cycle of birth and death. In Armenia the swastika is the ancient symbol of eternity and eternal light (i.e. God). In Christianity, the swastika is used as a hooked version of the Cross, the symbol of Christ’s victory over death. In North America it was also used by native american tribes. To the Hopi it represents the wandering Hopi clan; to the Navajo it the symbol for the whirling log used in healing rituals. Before the 1930’s it was the symbol for the 45th Infantry Division of the United States Army, a tribute to the large Native American population in the southwestern United States.

But today, at least in the Western world, it a symbolizes only one thing—hate.

Today there is another symbol whose meaning has changed over the years. Originally the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and adopted throughout the Confederacy. It became the emblem of the United Confederate Veterans and the later Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The Second Confederate Navy Jack flag, a rectangular version, is most commonly seen today.

It was viewed as a symbol of Southern ancestry and heritage, representing the cultural tradition of the Southern United States and honoring those who fell during the Civil War.

But that symbol was hijacked by white supremacist groups around the country promoting their agenda of racism, xenophobia, homophobia and antisemitism. It now symbolizes only one thing—hate.

[1] Wikipedia contributors, Swastika, retrieved June 24, 2015

“In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.”[1]

By 2000 measles had nearly disappeared in the United States. But in recent years the number of cases has increased dramatically.

The dramatic increase in measles cases is matched by a corresponding drop in the vaccination rate.

Who is to blame?

In February 1998 Andrew Wakefield published a study in the Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, linking autism with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.[2] The study included only 12 cases, far too few to draw any conclusions. But it turned out that the study was not simply bad science, it was outright fraud.[3]

Within the medical community the study was quickly dismissed with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the vaccine was both effective and safe. But this story of fraudulent science did not end.

The media decided it was a good story. In their perverse logic fair and balanced reporting has come to be defined as finding two opposing positions on an issue and treating them as if they were equally valid.

In this case, on one side was a fraudulent study by a disgraced researcher[4] and on the other the world’s medical research community. And yet the media treated this as a “controversy.”[5]

So, who is to blame for the dramatic increase in measles? The answer is clear, blame the media.

Additional links that might be of interest.

http://www.cdc.gov/measles/

Amy Parker, Growing Up Unvaccinated, January 6, 2014, Slate
“I had the healthiest childhood imaginable. And yet I was sick all the time.”

Voices for Vaccines

“Voices for Vaccines (VFV) is a parent-driven organization supported by scientists, doctors, and public health officials that provides parents clear, science-based information about vaccines and vaccine-preventable disease, as well as an opportunity to join the national discussion about the importance of on-time vaccination.”

[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measles History, retrieved 3/13/15

[2] Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A et al. “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children“, (28 February 1998), Lancet 351(9103): 637–41. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0.PMID 9500320. (Retracted)

[3] Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H,  “Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent”, January 6, 2011, BMJ342: c7452. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452. PMID 21209060.

[4] Deer, Brian. “General Medical Council, Fitness to Practice Panel Hearing, 28 January 2010, Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith & Simon Murch” (PDF). briandeer.com. Archived from the original on 13 December 2010.

[5] John Snyder, Vaccines and the Media: No Room for Balance, September 2, 2009, Science-Based Medicine

Twenty years ago, in January 1995, I wrote my first “blog”. It wasn’t called a blog back then. Jorn Barger first used the term “weblog” in December 1997. Peter Merholz shortened this to “blog” in April or May 1999. So I’ve been blogging since before there were blogs, a full twenty years ago.

The process of writing a blog is dramatically easier than it was twenty years ago. At the start all posts were written in a text editor typing in all the HTML codes.

<ul>

<li>Is it a secret?</li>

<li>Who must not find out?</li>

<li>What harm will come to the United States if “they” find out?</li>

</ul>

Let me elaborate.

<h4><em>Is it a secret?</em></h4>

A simple question or so it would seem.

HTML gave way to CSS and now I use WordPress, a purpose built blogging tool. Today the mechanics of writing a blog are easy.

Research has also changed. In May 1995 when I wrote On Government Secrecy[1] I spent a long day in the county library chasing down source material. Today I do most of my research online.

Why do I write?

I have no expectation that my blog will change the world. With just a handful of readers it will not have an effect on the body politic. I write for me[2]. Writing helps me better understand the issues and stop obsessing about them.

What do I write about?

Mostly I write about subjects that can vaguely be categorized as politics or foreign policy.

From Presidential Politics[3], October 2004,

The “Swift Boat Veterans for ‘Truth’” ran ads proclaiming that John Kerry was lying about his combat service. Republican senator John McCain called the ads “dishonest and dishonorable”. He was no stranger to the tactic. “It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me.”

George Bush didn’t go to Vietnam, but then neither did I. Did his family connections help him avoid service? Of course, but then I’m sure my mom requested the intersession of the Almighty on my behalf. Various groups have claimed that George Bush did not satisfy the requirements for his National Guard service. The basis is a number of documents that don’t or no longer exist and a few documents that cannot be verified. But a document that does exist and was verified is an honorable discharge.

From North Korea and Nuclear War[4], December 2010

Their increasingly bellicose pronouncements, including the threat of a nuclear war, make it clear that a long term solution on the Korean peninsula requires that either the South Korean border be extended to the Yalu River or the Chinese border be extended to the 38th parallel. I’m not sure I care which. Given the sorry state of the North Korean economy I suspect that both South Korea and China would each prefer it be the other.

At times I’ve tried to explain science and public policy.

From Science and Press Releases[5], April 2012

For immediate release: Thursday, April 5, 2012
Boston, MA – The likely culprit in sharp worldwide declines in honeybee colonies since 2006 is imidacloprid, one of the most widely used pesticides, according to a new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).

Reading press releases on scientific papers leads to little more than confusion. Real understand requires reading the original paper.

The Harvard press release says, “The authors, led by Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology in the Department of Environmental Health, write that the new research provides ‘convincing evidence’ of the link between imidacloprid and the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), in which adult bees abandon their hives.”

But what the paper actually says is, “Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD months after imidacloprid exposure.”

The most important point is that you cannot trust press releases or commentaries to accurately describe scientific research. If you really want to know what was written you need to read the original. Don’t trust anyone’s characterizations.

From “Non-Lethal” Weapons[6], December 2011

The incident at the University of California, Davis put pepper spray back in the headlines.[1] But the appalling conduct by the UC Davis police is not an isolated incident. There have been similar incidents around the country resulting in dozens of deaths.

The underlying problem is the term itself, “non-lethal,” that encourages a mindset that allows police to use these weapons with casual disregard for the consequences.

There have been deaths associated with everyone of the “non lethal” weapons used by police today. There is only one circumstance when any these weapons should be used—when the only alternative is to use “lethal” weapons.

 Sometimes I explore the human condition.

From Birthers Won’t Go Away[7], May 2011

All conspiracy theories have at their core a major flaw. They presuppose a world filled with very competent people acting in a highly coordinated fashion, with laser like focus on long term goals, maintaining absolute secrecy. That’s not the world we live in. The real world is filled with marginally competent people, who have trouble taking directions and can barely look ahead a few weeks much less decades. And very few people can keep their mouths shut.

 From Black and White[8], July 2010

A great majority of people insist on seeing the world in black and white. On every issue one side is everything that is good and the other is everything that is evil. I first remember being hit over the head with this perverse world without grey during the Vietnam War. It seemed that most of those opposed to the war concluded that since the war was wrong therefore all US soldiers were baby killers and all North Vietnamese and Vietcong were paragons of virtue. I believe the war was wrong, fought in support of a corrupt government in South Vietnam to prevent a domino effect on all of Southeast Asia that as time has shown wasn’t a problem. But I also believe the great majority of US soldiers were doing nothing more than trying to stay alive and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong often used tactics were reprehensible.

But once in a while I write about something personal

From On Driving Convertibles[9], August 2008

A friend of mine suggested that owning a convertible was unwise in our part of northern New Jersey, limited to just 15 days a year of driving with the top down.

As I was driving to work this morning with the windows down and the roof panel removed (temperature 57) I had a chance to think about it. 15 days a year isn’t even close, quadruple that is still not enough.

When I picked up the car for the first time at the dealership I put the top in the trunk and headed home for the first time, the long way around. That set the standard, the Corvette was to be driven with the top off at every opportunity.

Acceptable conditions:  day or night, temperature range 55 to 85 though occasionally on both sides of that range. It could be bright and sunny, partly cloudy or completely overcast. In a light drizzle more often than you might expect, in a torrential downpour once. But for the bozo ahead of me crawling along, I would have made it into the garage before the skies opened.

In the news today[1] is the latest in the tragic story of Brittany Maynard, a vibrant young woman who six months ago was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. In April, doctors gave her six months to live. She moved to Oregon with the intent to commit suicide.

In 1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 16 passed 51.3% to 48.7%. As a result on October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act.[2] It allows any Oregon resident with a terminal illness to request a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. Like any bureaucracy there are forms to fill out. They require both an attending physician and a consulting physician to certify that the patient is making an informed decision. They also require two witnesses, one of whom is not a relative or entitled to any part of the estate, to attest that the patient is capable, acting voluntarily and not being coerced.

The intent behind these requirements in the statue is to ensure that such voluntary euthanasia cannot become involuntary euthanasia.

A key argument against right to die legislation is that it puts on a “slippery slope.” Over time, voluntary euthanasia will inevitably become involuntary euthanasia.

In 1993, John Sopinka speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) wrote:

“Critics of the Dutch approach point to evidence suggesting that involuntary active euthanasia (which is not permitted by the guidelines) is being practiced to an increasing degree. This worrisome trend supports the view that a relaxation of the absolute prohibition takes us down ‘the slippery slope'”.[3]

In 1997, Chief Justice William Rehnquist in WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG made a similar argument.

“Thus, it turns out that what is couched as a limited right to ‘physician assisted suicide’ is likely, in effect, a much broader license, which could prove extremely difficult to police and contain. Washington’s ban on assisting suicide prevents such erosion.”[4]

But in 2007 Margaret P. Battin, in the Journal of Medical Ethics refuted the argument.

“Rates of assisted dying in Oregon and in the Netherlands showed no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured (inapplicable in the Netherlands, where all are insured), people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses including depression, or racial or ethnic minorities, compared with background populations.”[5]

And in 2009, Judith A. C. Rietjens, in the Journal of Bioethical Inquiry supported the conclusion.

“Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted in clear insights into the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. No slippery slope seems to have resulted.”[6]

But I think all the arguments suggesting that there is no “slippery slope” miss an important point. Terminal illness is often an emotionally and financially crippling burden on family and friends. I worry that good people faced with this situation will not see this new legal acceptance as their right to die but rather see it their responsibility to die.

Other links of interest:

https://www.compassionandchoices.org/
http://www.deathwithdignity.org/
http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/
http://www.epcc.ca/
http://www.notdeadyet.org/

---

[1] Brittany Maynard on decision to die: Now ‘doesn’t seem like the right time’, Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN.com, retrieved October 30, 2014

[2] Death with Dignity Act, Oregon.gov, retrieved October 30, 2014

[3] Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 SCR 519, 1993 CanLII 75 (SCC)

[4] WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)  Note: in 2006 the court ruled in favor of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act in GONZALES v. OREGON.

[5] Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in “vulnerable” groups., Battin, P. et al., Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;33:591–597

[6] Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?, Rietjens, J. et al., Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, Sep 2009; 6(3): 271–28

In conversations over the years I’ve often said that at the start of war the first thing any nation should do is shoot all the generals, their own.* Generals consistently plan for the last war not the next one and employ battlefield tactics oblivious to changes in technology. The massed formations employed during the Civil War might have worked against smooth bore musket fire in the Revolutionary War but against the rifled barrels used in the Civil War the result was slaughter. In World War I they sent lines of soldiers against the enemy, a better tactic against the rifled barrels of the Civil War but worse than useless against Hiram Maxim’s machine gun. Again soldiers were thoughtlessly sent to slaughter.

Daniel L. Davis, writing in the Armed Forces Journal[1] doesn’t think we should wait until the next war. His opening paragraph is a brutal indictment of senior staff.

“The U.S. Army’s generals, as a group, have lost the ability to effectively function at the high level required of those upon whom we place the responsibility for safeguarding our nation. Over the past 20 years, our senior leaders have amassed a record of failure in major organizational, acquisition and strategic efforts. These failures have been accompanied by the hallmarks of an organization unable and unwilling to fix itself: aggressive resistance to the reporting of problems, suppression of failed test results, public declarations of success where none was justified, and the absence of accountability.”

They wasted our tax dollars weapons buying systems that don’t work. A few examples; the RAH-66 Comanche armed reconnaissance helicopter, cancelled after $6.9 billion, the XM2001 Crusader mobile cannon, canceled after $7 billion, the Future Combat Systems canceled after $20 billion. And the list goes on and on.

And it is not just acquisition programs.

“This sad pattern extends into combat operations, as well. American military leaders have consistently made claims of combat success in Afghanistan. In the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, they repeatedly argued that the Taliban were being defeated and the Afghan National Security Forces were steadily improving.”

Mr. Davis makes several recommendations:

• Replace a substantial chunk of today’s generals, starting with the three- and four-star ranks.
• Fix the promotion system. To change the performance of the general officer corps, there must be a reform in the way officers are selected for promotion.
• Shrink the general officer corps. In 1945, about 2,000 general and flag officers led a total of about 12 million citizens in uniform. Today, we have about 900 generals and admirals and 1.4 million troops, and the ratio of leader-to-led has accelerated upward in the two decades since the end of the Cold War.

I hope someone takes these recommendations seriously.

 

---

[1] Daniel L. Davis, Purge the Generals, Armed Forces Journal, August 2013

* Sarcasm doesn’t translate well on the internet but suffice it to say that I don’t recommend the violent overthrow of the officer corp.

In an OP-ED piece in the New York Times[1] former president Jimmy Carter decried the loss of moral leadership by the United States.

“THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.”

In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] with the strong support of the United States. It sent the world a strong message. In President Carter’s words:

“This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.”

Since 9/11 we’ve turned our back on these principles.

“It is disturbing that, instead of strengthening these principles, our government’s counterterrorism policies are now clearly violating at least 10 of the declaration’s 30 articles, including the prohibition against ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

“In addition to American citizens’ being targeted for assassination or indefinite detention, recent laws have canceled the restraints in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow unprecedented violations of our rights to privacy through warrantless wiretapping and government mining of our electronic communications.”

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 inflicted enormous damage on the United States, 2,996 dead and billions of dollars in property damage. But the most serious damage was that it changed who we are and what we believe in.

In 1775 Benjamin Franklin wrote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those words have never been more true.

---

[1] Jimmy Carter, A Cruel and Unusual Record, The New York Times, June 24, 2012

[2] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948

You might have missed an important press release late last week on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).

For immediate release: Thursday, April 5, 2012

Boston, MA – The likely culprit in sharp worldwide declines in honeybee colonies since 2006 is imidacloprid, one of the most widely used pesticides, according to a new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH).[1]

Bayer, the manufacturer of imidacloprid, wasted no time in issuing their own press release.

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. (April 5, 2012) — Bayer CropScience has reviewed the study for publication in the June issue of the Bulletin of Insectology regarding imidacloprid’s supposed impact on honey bee colony health. The study is factually inaccurate and is seriously flawed, both in its methodology and conclusions.[2]

Reading press releases on scientific papers leads to little more than confusion. Real understand requires reading the original paper.

The Harvard press release says, “The authors, led by Chensheng (Alex) Lu, associate professor of environmental exposure biology in the Department of Environmental Health, write that the new research provides ‘convincing evidence’ of the link between imidacloprid and the phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), in which adult bees abandon their hives.”

But what the paper actually says is, “Data from this in situ study provide convincing evidence that exposure to sub-lethal levels of imidacloprid causes honey bees to exhibit symptoms consistent to CCD months after imidacloprid exposure.”[3]

The Harvard press release overstated the results of the study. But the Bayer press release goes way further. “Although the study claims to have established a link between imidacloprid and bee colony collapse, the symptoms observed in the study bees are not consistent with, or even remotely similar to, those of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). As such, the authors’ claims that their study explains the causes of CCD are spectacularly incorrect.”

Disingenuous is the gentlest way I can describe the Bayer press release. The symptoms were extremely similar to CCD. The authors never claimed the study explains the causes of CCD. The list of “flaws” cited in the Bayer press release is little more than disinformation.

So what does the paper actually say?  In the abstract right at the beginning of the paper the authors state, “This in situ study was designed to replicate CCD based on a plausible mechanistic hypothesis in which the occurrence of CCD since 2006 was resulted from the presence of imidacloprid, one of the neonicotinoid insecticides, in high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), fed to honey bees as an alternative to sucrose-based food.”

The paper never claims to have found the cause of CCD, only that they replicated the symptoms with exposure to imidacloprid. Writing for Wired Science, Brandon Keim reports, “Jeffery Pettis, a bee biologist at the United States Department of Agriculture, called the results ‘tantalizing but not conclusive.’ With only four colonies used per dose level, the study’s statistical significance is limited, ‘but I would love to see this study replicated such that the trends … they observed could be actually validated,’ wrote Pettis in an email. … Pettis said the study’s lower dose ranges, which were sufficient to destroy the colonies, ‘were what bees could encounter in the environment.’ His take was echoed by biologist Christian Krupke of Purdue University, who said the doses ‘are certainly within the range that bees may encounter in the field.’ ”[4]

There is a lot more work to do before any conclusion can be drawn but the paper points to a promising avenue for research.

The most important point is that you cannot trust press releases or commentaries to accurately describe scientific research. If you really want to know what was written you need to read the original. Don’t trust anyone’s characterizations.

There is a lot to dislike about Newt Gingrich. For starters he publicly stated his goal to overthrow the government of the United States and crown himself emperor.

“I would instruct the national security officials in a Gingrich administration to ignore the recent decisions of the Supreme Court on national security matters, and I would interpose the presidency in saying, as the commander in chief, we will not enforce this.”

He doesn’t use the word emperor but his meaning is clear. The most important principle of government handed down from the founding fathers is that no one is above the law. But Newt Gingrich wants to do exactly that, set himself above the law.

Once you come to grips with extent of his megalomania it becomes much easier to understand all his other failings.

The ethics rules for members of the House of Representatives are set by the members themselves. Not surprisingly they set the bar appallingly low making sure that members rarely run into trouble. And yet 84 ethics charges were filed against Newt Gingrich.

“The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House’s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.”[1]

Today he characterizes the actions against him as partisan politics. “It tells you how capriciously political that committee was that she [Nancy Pelosi] was on it. It tells you how tainted the outcome was that she was on it.” The vote in the house was 395 to 28, hardly a party line vote. At the time Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who headed the investigative subcommittee said, “We have proved to the American people that no matter how rough the process is, we can police ourselves, we do know right from wrong,” Many years later Newt Gingrich still doesn’t know right from wrong. And all the details of his ethical lapses that led to the House’s action that Gingrich if afraid Nancy Pelosi will release to the public are already a matter of public record.[2]

His conduct in his personal life is no less reprehensible. In 1980 he left his first wife after an adulterous affair. In the 1990’s he was involved in another adulterous affair while at the same time leading the attack on President Clinton for his adulterous affair. And those are only the two affairs that have come to light. Serial adulterers are rarely so limited. However, as part of his presidential campaign buried in a long letter written in hopes of getting the support of the Iowa social conservative group The Family Leader[3] he says, “I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.” His third wife can only hope he means it this time.

Over the years his policy proposals have been filled with misinformation designed to inflame voters but not solve any of the problems the nation faces.[4]

From his earliest days running for congress lies and hypocrisy have been hallmarks of his career. Now he wants to be president. We should ignore all his misdeeds and character flaws. After all emperors are above all the rules.