by hilzoy
Via Crooks and Liars, a truly amazing story:
“Four years ago, as the state labored to eradicate citrus canker by destroying trees, officials rejected other disease-fighting techniques, saying unproven methods would waste precious time and resources. But for more than six months, the state, at the behest of then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris, did pursue one alternative method — a very alternative method. Researchers worked with a rabbi and a cardiologist to test “Celestial Drops,” promoted as a canker inhibitor because of its “improved fractal design,” “infinite levels of order” and “high energy and low entropy.” But the cure proved useless against canker. That’s because it was water — possibly, mystically blessed water.” “
“The “product is a hoax and not based on any credible known science,” the state’s chief of entomology, nematology and plant pathology wrote to agriculture officials and fellow scientists after testing Celestial Drops in October 2001. In the same letter, Wayne Dixon recommended that the state break off its relationship with the promoters of Celestial Drops. “We have expended considerable effort in trying to responsibly deal with this group and their products,” he stated. “I wish to maintain our standing in the scientific community and not allow these individuals to use our hard-earned credibility for further name-dropping.” (…)
In the past 10 years, Florida has been swamped by companies claiming to have a cure for canker. In virtually all cases, the state has thanked the companies for their interest and delivered the same message: “Test the product using accepted scientific principles and then show us the results.” “We don’t do the testing for them,” said Tim Schubert, the head of plant pathology in the state’s Bureau of Entomology, Nematology & Plant Pathology. “We’re just not set up for that.”
But though the state told other companies it could not test their products, it made an exception for Celestial Drops. After months of correspondence, researchers took the unusual step of testing the product for Hardoon and his partner, New York cardiologist Artur Spokojny. In a two-day test in October 2001, they soaked canker cultures in Celestial Drops — which by then had been given a new name — and determined it had no effect. The results weren’t a surprise to researchers. After all, one bit of promotional material said the liquid they were testing was so pure the company had been allowed “to distribute this material as drinking water.” “
And Harris’ involvement?
“So why did Florida spend months discussing and developing test protocols for Celestial Drops? The initial push came from Harris, now a U.S. House representative and candidate for U.S. Senate. Harris, the granddaughter of legendary citrus baron Ben Hill Griffin Jr., said she was introduced to one of the product’s promoters, New York Rabbi Abe Hardoon, in 2000. Hardoon did not want to discuss Celestial Drops when contacted by the Orlando Sentinel. But Harris said Hardoon told her he was working with Israeli scientists who had developed a compound that made plants resistant to canker.
Harris acted as intermediary and urged state agriculture officials to work with Hardoon and his associates. “I met with those [Israeli] scientists,” Harris said Friday. “They were confident they had a cure for canker.” Harris said she then stepped back and allowed Hardoon and the state to work out the details. Agriculture Department officials insist she applied no political pressure. “She just wanted to make sure it was brought to our attention,” said agriculture spokesman Terence McElroy.
State records, however, suggest Harris had a keen interest in the project. She was repeatedly sent copies of the letters and memos bouncing between Florida canker officials and Hardoon. In August 2001, Harris herself jotted a note to Hardoon. “I would love to see this work,” it says. All the while, some canker researchers questioned why they were cooperating with Hardoon when he had produced little evidence that Celestial Drops worked. In one memo, a University of Florida citrus scientist suggested agriculture officials had been “put in a politically difficult position.” It did not say by whom.”
Slarti’s tax dollars at work again. These people never cease to amaze me. (Speaking of which, via TPM, there’s a whole new front in the Duke Cunningham saga. More details here.)
So Katherine Harris is into Kabbalah? The religous right sure has a big tent these days.
Slarti’s tax dollars at work again.
I believe this type of thing is called “constituent service.” Trouble is, most people are confused about who’s the constituent. Hint: it ain’t you.
Ya gotta love that ‘by whom’ at the end.
Wow — and I thought that the Ohio GOP investing worker’s comp funds in rare coins was bad. This has the virtue of not only being dumb, but predictably so.
Secretary of State is not a particularly powerful position in my state. Does/did Katherine Harris’ ‘juice’ (couldn’t resist) come from the role she’d played in the 2000 election, or is it just a more substantial players’ position in Florida than elsewhere (so she was there as a self-funding, attractive up-and-coming pol)? Or because she was banging Jeb?
Slarti, any thoughts? (or other Floridians — on the Sec. State role)
My wife, the botanist with specialties in wetland construction and plant pathology (whose budget gets cut every year, cause, you know, we must do more with less during these times of mysterious budget shortfalls despite the doubling of G.N.P under GWB) gets home from work in an hour. God, I can’t wait to show her this. I’m going to meet her at the door holding this post in my hand while wearing a Phyllis Shafly bunny suit with codpiece.
Ladies and Gentleman, we are in the hands of very low quality people.
Maybe Celestial Drops will work to pacify Iraq and bring free ice cream to the world, just in case anybody thinks I never have a big idea for GWB to implement forthwith.
I wish canker upon Katherine Harris. Didn’t Terry Schiavo die of advanced canker? I thought I noticed symptoms in the video. And I should know, having never studied science or medicene at Killtheelitists University.
And to think they wasted those drops on the effing fruit trees.
A rabbi, a cardiologist, and Katherine Harris walk into a bar …
From the article,
Is that a great answer or what?
Is it just me, or does it seem of late comrade hilzoy is doing the lion share of the heavy lifting here at ObWi? Not that I mind, on the contrary, just mentioning.
Is it just me, or does it seem of late comrade hilzoy is doing the lion share of the heavy lifting here at ObWi? Not that I mind, on the contrary, just mentioning.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, I guess. ;^)
Celestial Drops
I think I droped some of that, with ectasy, at a rave in L.A.
Talk about candy-flipping.
xanax: I put it down to other people having actual lives during the long weekend 😉
hilzoy: …and I chalk it up to the fact that you have a mind that outshines the sun.
So rabbis are starting to give televangelists a run for their money, literally.
My disgust is unmeasurable.
Bernard, perhaps fractal?
“Maybe Celestial Drops will work to pacify Iraq”
Actually, more drinking water would help a lot there.
My disgust is large, it contains multitudes.
Government for the few at the expense of the many.
Well, SecState in Florida is completely disconnected from agriculture. Not saying that Harris couldn’t have asked someone to do something, nor saying that Harris didn’t have friends in a position to do so, just saying she hasn’t any direct oversight into ag affairs.
Harris’ replacement, Glenda Hood, is a far more politically dangerous and outright corrupt politician than Harris could ever have aspired to be. However, Glenda’s kept her nose fairly clean, or at least clean enough so that the press hasn’t yet caught on.
Oh, and the “Celestial Drops” business was in yesterday’s Sentinel, IIRC. I have a pretty low opinion of Ms. Harris, but she managed to lower it even further.
from the article
One document in the state’s files indicates an official had searched the Internet for information on Hardoon and Spokojny and discovered both practiced Kabbalah, a religious movement whose followers include celebrities such as Madonna
I’m wondering what this person’s job title is and how well it pays. I would suggest ‘googlogist’
“However, Glenda’s kept her nose fairly clean, or at least clean enough so that the press hasn’t yet caught on.”
Posted by: Slartibartfast |
Since she’s a right-winger, that doesn’t mean much. The ‘liberal media’ is surprisingly good at not noticing wrong-doing by right-wingers. I guess that they don’t want to be biased.
This claim of selective blindness is based on what, exactly? The “liberal media” around here was quite vocal about Ms. Hood’s antics while she was mayor of Orlando, not that it did any good at all. Corruption is nearly impossible to bring to court until some traceable financial transaction has taken place, and if any money changed hands while Ms. Hood was mayor, no one’s got the goods on her. The Sentinel‘s got one of the better attack dogs in Florida, and he carries no brief for any Republican.
I regard her appointment to the SecState position to be Jeb’s biggest failure as governor, simply due to past misdeeds. Of course, it all might be written off as incompetence, but sort of incompetence shouldn’t go unpunished, much less rewarded.
This claim of selective blindness is based on what, exactly?
*jaw drops*
Slarti, you’re not serious?
Just for starters, think about Margie Schoedinger, who gets 886 hits on Google, and Juanita Broaddrick, who gets 13 900.
Both Broaddrick and Schoedinger accused the President of the United States of rape. Neither could present sufficient evidence to prove their accusation. The media largely ignored Schoedinger, and by no means ignored Broaddrick.
I’m sure others can come up with other examples (I’m not about to start a fight with you over the Florida election thing again) but that’s one particularly egregious example.
That’s spooky.
Not forgetting about the 2000 election in Florida, but dodging all of the court wrangling about recounts – how much national flack did Harris pick up for voter registration list scrubbing? If you read Salon, you know about it; if not probably not.
What if Clinton had won in 1992, by winning Arkansas, after stuff like that had been done, by his Secretary of State who was also the Arkansas Clinton for President campaign manager?
Of course, this imbalance could have absolutely nothing to do with credibility of person lodging the complaint. I mean, Bush took time out from campaigning to rape a woman in Houston? Please. October 25th he spent in Florida with McCain; the next day he was in New England. Making a stop for drugged sex (possibly with the husband, too, if you believe the complaint) and not have it be observed by anyone at all is simply implausible. It’s not even fodder for Ratheresque speculation.
Yes, that is bizarre, but not in the way you mean. This is obviously a woman with issues, and she’s also a woman who’s never actually been in the presence of GWB, which makes her claim to fame a little less newsworthy. Read the links, and you’ll notice that she’s not claiming that Bush raped her. The accusation that Bush ordered some nameless, faceless men to rape her is rather lacking in sales appeal. Cold, but that’s how news works.
Yes, I know about it. More so than Salon does, apparently. For instance, Harris doesn’t and didn’t remove anyone at all from the voter rolls; that task is reserved for the county supervisors of election, who were advised (by Harris) that there were known problems with the list and that the list should be used at their discretion. Oops.
“I’m wondering what this person’s job title is and how well it pays. I would suggest ‘googlogist'”
Hey, don’t knock it. We should be encouraging government officials to use Google; a lot of trouble could be avoided by taking that minor precaution.
Hmmm…reading the petition, it’s not clear what she’s claiming, other than she was drugged by some faceless guys, ostensibly raped, and somehow there’s a leap from there to her miscarrying Bush’s love child. Weird isn’t the word for this.
Slarti: I think the Downing Street memos are a better example, myself.
It’s hard to imagine a much worse one, so I’m not going to argue.
“Yes, I know about it. More so than Salon does, apparently. For instance, Harris doesn’t and didn’t remove anyone at all from the voter rolls; that task is reserved for the county supervisors of election, who were advised (by Harris) that there were known problems with the list and that the list should be used at their discretion. Oops.”
Posted by: Slartibartfast
IOW: “it’s not my fault that they might have actually used the lists that I provided”. Which is certainly a useful disclaimer, the type which has probably kept many people out of jail or bankruptcy.
Now, how much weight would such an ‘oops’ get if it had been done in 1992, under the circumstances I outlined?
The blatancy of the right in pursuing it’s huckster schemes is amazing. They simply din’t see anything wrong and go on oblivious to hypocrisy.
For example the right is (rightly) frothed by the UN scandal in the Iraqi oil for food scandal, but—-
Despicte allocations almost no American money has been used for the rebuilding of Iraq. It has been Iraqi. Until last fall Iraqi firms were essentially barred from competition on major projects, when things became dangerous we started boasting that we let them in. Now it turns out that the US firms were less than honest, the DOD has the same problem. There are also missing billions and responsibility for setting up a government that is listed by transperancy international as among the most corrupt in the world.
The first year of the occupation was a scandal. Key authority was handed to kids who put in resumes at the Heritage foundation. Their backgrounds included things like driving ice cream trucks and *trying* to startt cooking schools (Simone Ledeen daughter of the rightist who sold weapons to Iran to pacify terrorists, experienced workers could not get funding, Iraqi cement was put on a blacklist because the plants were still government owneed thus politically incorrect, meaning our corporations had to import (big profits!)
Bit by bit Iraqis are grasping how much has been looted. The military is also investigating the fraud, but the right finds nothing immoral.
Observer, you’re being harsh. After all, 9/11 changed everything, didn’t it?
Slarti: Of course, this imbalance could have absolutely nothing to do with credibility of person lodging the complaint.
I can’t see why the media would care, no. The details of Margie Schoedinger’s suit are a matter of public record, and since she died, can be reported on at will – providing, of course, the media take care to say they are reporting what Margie Schoedinger accused Bush of, not what actually happened – the which, we’ll never now know.
But it would appear that the media prefers not to report juicy scandal when the President involved in it is surnamed Bush.
Hilzoy: I think the Downing Street memos are a better example, myself.
Or the fact that the Bush administration made no plans to secure/destroy those fabled stockpiles of WMD that they said they knew were there. That scandal broke the weekend before the election, and while it was reported on, my impression is that it wasn’t being hammered down as it certainly should have been: that the Bush administration hadn’t taken seriously what they had claimed was the primary objective for invasion.
Which brings to mind a horrifying visual – many, many quiet dark bunkers *empty* of nerve/mustard gas shells, which had formerly been full. With grafitti on the walls, most of which were variations of ‘Osama thanks you, Bush’.
Ignoring the abuse of quotes, I counter with it’s not my fault that state law requires me to furnish the felon list.
I’d surmise it’s fear of looking like a tabloid, but you just never know what the media’s going to go with. Probably it’s best to assume folks like Dan Rather are just too reluctant to pick up something this poorly substantiated. Alternatively, maybe it smelled too bad for even Dan to go with.
it’s not my fault that state law requires me to furnish the felon list.
State law did not require Katherine Harris to furnish a felon list that included many false positives:
Don’t need?
Slarti: Probably it’s best to assume folks like Dan Rather are just too reluctant to pick up something this poorly substantiated.
It didn’t seem to bother the mass media when repeating the SBV’s outright lies, did it? But the SBVfT were not slandering a Presidential candidate surnamed Bush.
(Damn typepad!)
Okay, the formatting of that last paragraph was meant to be:
Also, I meant to add a comment about the media not minding “looking like a tabloid” when they were going after Clinton’s sex life – yet, as you observe, Slarti, they do seem to mind when going after Bush’s sex life.
Me (paraphrasing Harris’ remarks): “it’s not my fault that they might have actually used the lists that I provided”
“Slartibartfast (edited, for clarity):
“Ignoring the abuse of quotes, I counter with ‘it’s not my fault that state law requires me to furnish the felon list.'”
Ridiculous – it is her fault how she does her job.
Another person: “But it would appear that the media prefers not to report juicy scandal when the President involved in it is surnamed Bush.”
Slartibartfast: “I’d surmise it’s fear of looking like a tabloid, but you just never know what the media’s going to go with. Probably it’s best to assume folks like Dan Rather are just too reluctant to pick up something this poorly substantiated. ”
Which fear struck them very suddenly, in the 2000 election season, concerning only people named ‘Bush’.
“Alternatively, maybe it smelled too bad for even Dan to go with.”
Nah, the media sure went with the Swift Liars.
Slartibartfast, can’t you come up with something better than this?
Sheesh, at least put some fruit in the Kool-aid, for variety’s sake.
That would be silly of state law, now wouldn’t it?
I invite you to examine the distinction between real and imaginary occurrences. Or not, if you don’t care about such things as they apply to the news media.
I will if you will. If you’re not willing to make a modicum of effort to support your claims, don’t expect a lot of effort in return.
Slarti: That would be silly of state law, now wouldn’t it?
So why attempt “I counter with it’s not my fault that state law requires me to furnish the felon list” as an excuse for Katherine Harris?
I invite you to examine the distinction between real and imaginary occurrences
I invite you to look again at the media coverage of Broaderick’s allegiation of rape versus Schoedinger’s allegation of rape. (And wikipedia includes further info about Selene Walters… anyone remember her?)
Slart, I’ve already given examples – Katherine Harris, the Swift Liars.
Other juicy scandals would be Bush’s business career.
But since you obviously will ignore the evidence, and come up with irrelevant come-backs, why bother?
There are always wacky lawsuits against public figures. When I was working for a judge, we had a case against the Ontario Supreme Court and Justice Kennedy, having to do with a property dispute in Canada. There was another where the defendants were the US, London, England, China, India, and Africa. Had to do with a fellow who became disruptive on a bus. I don’t remember whether the African-American involved was the driver, a policeman, or a medical professional, but no matter: you can’t sue ‘Africa’ for the conduct of a descendant of slaves.
The Bush rape story looks like it belongs in this category.
Once upon a time, back when my dad was a sort of minor public person, there was someone (a complete stranger) who used to call him periodically to update him on the worldwide conspiracy of dentists. And my Dad, being a nice guy, would listen politely, and the rest of us would be, say, eating dinner, and we’d hear Dad say something like: yes, but I’m not sure I understand why you think that dentists are responsible for the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and we’d be trying very hard not to burst out laughing, or at least not to laugh so loud that it would be audible to the person on the other end of the phone.
It was always my little consolation for the fact that Nixon bugged our phones: that the same people who got to listen to the entire telephonic record of my unfortunate adolescence also had to listen to all the phone calls about the worldwide conspiracy of dentists.
For some reason, CharleyCarp’s post reminded me of this…
you can’t sue ‘Africa’ for the conduct of a descendant of slaves.
Sure, but presumably the cases against the US, London, England, China, and India were sound.
Sure, but presumably the cases against the US, London, England, China, and India were sound.
Well, at least they had sovereign immunity. Unlike Africa. What is a continent, anyway?
What is a continent, anyway?
Completely off subject, but my wife, for reasons only known to god, likes the MTV Newlyweds show about Jessica Simpson and Nick whathisface. Anyway, they are having a talk that goes something like this.
—
J: I remember the first day of junior high and the teacher said ‘does anyone know the names of the continents’ and I was psyched and I raised my hand and said ‘I do, A, E, I, O, U!’
N: Geez, those aren’t even consonants…
—
I think about that every time someone mentions continents.
Katherine Harris got favorable coverage by the press? Who knew?
The Swift Boat Vets got less coverage than Rather’s embarrassment; is this supposed to support your point? I don’t see how. They actually had to BUY their coverage, while the bumbled knife-job on Bush…probably the right-wing press I guess. I mean, you guys wouldn’t have botched it that badly.
Barry: since you obviously will ignore the evidence …
You haven’t really provided evidence, just a few examples of “left-friendly” stories that weren’t covered and “right-friendly” stories that were. It would take a typical Rightie two minutes tops to come up with an equivalent set of examples in reverse.
Proving media bias is next to impossible, IMO — for one thing, the “media” is hardly monolithic; for another, it’s extremely difficult to come up with a non-observer-relative standard as to which individual examples qualify as valid instances of ideological bias (as opposed to sound editorial judgment, bias towards sensationalism, bias towards the mainstream, etc.); third, even if you could solve that problem, it’s even more difficult to come up with a fair way to balance the right-leaning and left-leaning instances against each other to determine some sort of final score.
Not that you’ll probably care, but I’ll continue to consider anyone making broad accusations of media bias, whether to the left or the right, as hopelessly partisan.
The Swift Boat Vets got less coverage than Rather’s embarrassment; is this supposed to support your point? I don’t see how. They actually had to BUY their coverage, while the bumbled knife-job on Bush…
I’m not one of those people who spends a whole lot of time thinking about this subject, but I think, Slart, that you’re maybe skipping something here. The story, with the Rather thing, wasn’t ‘about’ the President’s unquestionably light TANG service, it was manufactured outrage over a detail — a stupid detail that CBS messed up because they wanted the ratings. The story, as actually experienced, was pro-Bush and anti-liberal. The story with the SB folks, also pro-Bush, went far far beyond the very modest outlay of funds, because it fit a narrative that several different news outlets wanted to run.
I agree with kenB as a general proposition, but would add that the media is institutionally biased in favor of circulation (duh!), and that at particular times this leads to stories that break one partisan way or the other. Plenty of NYT stories on Whitewater, for example. I also think that the conservative press — and there is a conservative press — is, like most conservative politicians, better at message discipline.
Um…I hate to be blockheaded about this, but are you saying that this was a favorable news story for conservatives because Rather screwed the pooch? How much attention was it getting before people started pointing out the shortcomings? Rather a lot, as I recall.
I do have to say, though, that the lack of coverage on the whole Cunningham affair will have turned out to be quite disappointing, on the off-chance he’s not a convicted felon in the near future. I could almost see it, if there was some sort of ongoing investigation that relied on secrecy, but since the cat’s out of the bag, I can’t see why it’s not getting much press.
Could be me just reading the funny section, though.
kenB: It would take a typical Rightie two minutes tops to come up with an equivalent set of examples in reverse.
Perhaps, but so far no “typical Rightie” on this thread has managed to do it.
Perhaps some of us recognize where the burden of proof lies: on he who made the claim to begin with.
I hate to be blockheaded about this, but are you saying that this was a favorable news story for conservatives because Rather screwed the pooch?
Yes. The errors in the story — reliance on a document that was correct as a matter of substance but deeply flawed as a matter of form — very quickly became THE story. That is, within hours, the “story” was about CBS, not about Lt. Bush. And when you say ‘Rather screwed the pooch,’ you do so completely without reference to any actual facts having to do with Lt. Bush, but solely having to do with whether CBS should have used a recreated document without prominently disclosing that it had done so.
How much attention was it getting before people started pointing out the shortcomings? Rather a lot, as I recall.
We have different recollections, and while there’s always a bit of Roshomon in these things, I think if you look back, you’ll see that the counternarrative began very quickly — within hours — and completely overtook the CBS story within a day or two. More important, as noted above, this is not a case where CBS’s assertions about Lt. Bush were shown to be untrue. The fake memo wasn’t wrong about the facts, it just wasn’t an original memo.
What I find most interesting about the episode, and about your reaction to it, is that so many people care more (or purport to care more) about Dan Rather than about George Bush. I don’t care at all about Lt. Bush’s TANG service, although I think the way he and his reacted to stories about it says a lot about Pres. Bush and his operation. Dan Rather? Give me a break — he’s no more important to me than OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, or Paris Hilton. I understand that there’s a substantial subculture out there who feels positively victimized by Rather (and his co-conspirators). It’s just amazing to me that this feeling would be so deep that now, months later, the Triumph Over Rather is still one of the most important events of the fall of 2004.
Slartibartfast, at this point I’m just going to call you a dishonest SOB. Either you have deliberately twisted my examples, or you’re stupid.
And you’re not stupid.
Hilzoy, please enjoy your Charles and Sebastian and Slart. I don’t know why you associate with these scum. They’re happy with what the country is turning into. You won’t persuade them of anything.
Slarti: Perhaps some of us recognize where the burden of proof lies: on he who made the claim to begin with.
You asked “This claim of selective blindness is based on what, exactly?” and many examples were provided. That you choose to disregard all of them does not make them not exist.
KenB claimed that “It would take a typical Rightie two minutes tops to come up with an equivalent set of examples in reverse” – but the only people who could prove that claim would be “typical Righties”.
Someone failed to read the rest of the thread. Well, whatever works for you.
Yes, that is interesting, isn’t it? I mean, an insignificant thing like presenting an obvious, clumsy fabrication and presenting it as the real thing; who’d a thunk it?
Slarti: I mean, an insignificant thing like presenting an obvious, clumsy fabrication and presenting it as the real thing; who’d a thunk it?
You mean George W. Bush’s presentation of his military record? That’s the “obvious, clumsy fabrication”.
Someone failed to read the rest of the thread.
Someone is taking a bad example from Barry.
(Barry: it really doesn’t help the argument to abuse Slartibartfast. He’s wrong, and stubbornly wrong: you don’t need to insult him to prove that.)
Barry: I’m banning you for a day. You can, of course, appeal.
Typepad won’t let me in, alas.
Actually, it let me in, and I did it. Not for disagreeing with me, but for violating posting rules in doing so. I disagree with Jesurgislac on practically everything, and even though she’s obstinately wrong [ 8) ] nearly every time, neither of us goes into a frothing rage over it. Much. Anymore.
“Celestial Drops”? Haaaaaaaaaa-ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…