Comments (16)

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 10:11 AM:

Is it just me, or would the seeming rush to process a passport backlog using anyone and everyone possible a possible avenue for abuse?

I'd guess we're just talking about putting the passports together (not taking new applications) but still, the is the seminal document that construes citizenship.

Any chance one of the temporary cooks might pocket a few blank ones?

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 11:26 AM:

Even IF Leahy can get a contempt referral out of the Judiciary Committee, what is the Senate going to do? Send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Miers, or even the President (and a trial presided over by Vice President Cheney)?? If not, the contempt resolution has to be passed by the full Senate AND House, and THEN referred to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute as a criminal matter -- of course, prosecutorial descretion would apply -- while the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, a dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the executive branch who ultimately reports to the President, not Congress.

The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government. Also relevant, the Supreme Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) that the judicial branch will not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply.

Now, unless they've changed since the last time I checked, Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a CIVIL action against any private individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court (appointed by Bush) would theoretically issue another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times in the past; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials "in certain limited circumstances." The President cannot be sued for performance of his job duties, so there's plenty of wiggle room there.

Good luck with all that . . .

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 11:47 AM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 11:51 AM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 11:53 AM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 11:56 AM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 11:59 AM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 12:07 PM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 12:12 PM:

Scratch the surface of the Bald Eagle come-back story and you will find a political push to bring back DDT off the endangered chemical list.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 12:29 PM:

DDT's limited use in disease vector control continues to save HUMAN lives and should actually be expanded, since undue restrictions on its use have resulted in many millions of HUMAN deaths from malaria. Just ask Bono from U2.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 12:36 PM:

Malaria afflicts between 300 million and 500 million people every year. The World Health Organization estimates that around 1 million people die of malaria and malaria-related illness every year, with about 90% of these deaths occur in Africa, mostly to children under the age of 5.

Most prior use of DDT was in agriculture, but the controlled use of DDT continues to this day for the purposes of public health. Current use for disease control requires only a small fraction of the amounts previously used in agriculture, and at these levels the pesticide is much less likely to cause environmental problems. Residual house spraying involves the treatment of all interior walls and ceilings with insecticide, and is particularly effective against mosquitoes, which favour indoor resting before or after feeding. Advocated as the mainstay of malaria eradication programmes in the late 1950s and 1960s, DDT remains a major component of control programmes in southern African states, though many countries have abandoned or curtailed their spraying activities. Swaziland, Mozambique and Ecuador are examples of countries that have very successfully reduced malaria infestations with DDT.

Indeed, the problems facing health officials in their fight against malaria neither begin nor end with DDT. Experts tie the spread of malaria to numerous factors, including the resistance of the malaria microbe itself to the drugs traditionally used to treat the illness and a chronic lack of funds in the countries worst hit by malaria.

. . .

Today there is debate among professionals working on malaria control concerning the appropriate role of DDT. The range of disagreement is relatively narrow: Few believe either that large scale spraying should be resumed or that the use of DDT should be abandoned altogether. The debate focuses on the relative merits of DDT and alternative pesticides as well as complementary use of interior wall spraying, insecticide-treated bednets, and other mosquito control techniques.

Since the appointment of Arata Kochi as head of its anti-malaria division, the WHO has shifted its position in this controversy, from primary reliance on bednets to a policy more favorable to DDT. Until an announcement made on September 16, 2006, the policy had recommended indoor spraying of insecticides in areas of seasonal or episodic transmission of malaria, but a new policy also advocates it where continuous, intense transmission of the disease causes the most deaths. In 2007, the WHO clarrified its position, saying it is "very much concerned with health consequences from use of DDT" and reaffirmed its commitment to phasing out the use of DDT.

A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argues that the campaign against malaria is failing, that funding of malaria control should therefore be increased, and that use of DDT should be considered since DDT has "a remarkable safety record when used in small quantities for indoor spraying in endemic regions."

One insecticide supply company states on its website:

DDT is still one of the first and most commonly used insecticides for residual spraying, because of its low cost, high effectiveness, persistence and relative safety to humans. [...] In the past several years, we supplied DDT 75% WDP to Madagascar, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, South Africa, Namibia, Solomon Island, Papua New Guinea, Algeria, Thailand, and Myanmar for Malaria Control project, and won a good reputation from WHO and relevant countries' government.

In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before. Switching to the more-expensive malathion in 1977 reduced the malaria infection rate to 3,000 by 2004. A recent study notes, "DDT and Malathion are no longer recommended since An. culicifacies and An. subpictus has been found resistant."

According to the Cato Institute, after South Africa stopped using DDT in 1996, the number of malaria cases in KwaZulu Natal province rose from 8,000 to 42,000 cases. By 2000, there had been an approximate 400% increase in malaria deaths. Today, after the reintroduction of DDT, the number of deaths from malaria in the region is less than 50 per year. South Africa could afford and did try newer alternatives to DDT, but they proved less effective. Uganda also began permitting the use of DDT in anti-malarial efforts, despite a threat that its agricultural exports to Europe could be banned if they were contaminated with DDT. The Ugandan government has stated that it cannot achieve its development goals without first eliminating malaria. The GDP shows a striking correlation between malaria and poverty, where malaria is estimated to reduce per capita growth by 1.3 percent per annum.

Malaria cases increased in South America after countries in that continent stopped using DDT. Only Ecuador, which has continued to use DDT, has seen a reduction in the number of malaria cases in recent years. Other mosquito-borne diseases are also on the rise. Until the 1970s, DDT was used to eradicate the Aedes aegypti mosquito from most tropical regions of the Americas. The reinvasion of Aedes aegypti since has brought devastating outbreaks of dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and a renewed threat of urban yellow fever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddt#Effectiveness_against_malaria

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:33 PM:

I see that "Jake" is visiting from Thinkprogress.org

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 5, 2007 2:36 PM:

We don't know if Jack Abramoff was the largest backer of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA) because Italia Federici, president, and R. Jared Carpenter, vice-president, filed false 990s.

Abramoff provided $500k in funds to CREA that we know of between 2001 and 2003 and then he supposedly stopped funding CREA in the spring of 2003. We don't know who provided the remainder of CREA's funding between 2001 and 2003 and funding after 2003.

The CREA website may have been taken down because R. Jared Carpenter is reportedly pleading guilty to tax evasion this month.

Mehitabel wrote on July 5, 2007 6:40 PM:

This should be front page news...why isn't it?
"The House has blocked the President’s request to grant more power to the obscure Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The request would have given political appointees greater power over how government regulations are written." (Associated Press)

Do we really want political appointees writing regulations?

XYZ wrote on July 5, 2007 7:53 PM:

Btw, what has happened to the Gonzo story, you know, the one with the DOJ overthrowing our Democracy by (among other things) firing USAs who wouldnt play ball?

XYZ wrote on July 5, 2007 7:54 PM:

Btw, what has happened to the Gonzo story, you know, the one with the DOJ overthrowing our Democracy by (among other things) firing USAs who wouldnt play ball?